Pensions: SIPPs

Lord Fowler: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What responses they have received to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Pre-Budget Report announcement concerning self-invested personal pensions.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in the Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor announced that self-invested personal pensions would be prohibited from obtaining tax advantages when investing directly in residential property. A large number of the responses received were positive, reflecting the Government's view that such a measure was needed as a proportionate response to potential abuse.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, surely these things should have been found out earlier. Is it not a fact that the changes made to allow these pension holders to invest in residential property were introduced by the Finance Act 2004? Over the years the changes were consistently defended by Ministers, and yet the provision was cancelled only four months before implementation. Does not the Minister feel that the Government have acted unfairly towards all pension holders who relied on the Government's promise, prepared for the change and lost money as a result?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not accept that the Government have acted unfairly and I would point out that the new rules were not due to come into effect until April of this year. This was all part of a simplification process which had wide support among savers, in the pensions industry and, I thought, across the parties. When the rules were originally introduced, the assessment was that allowing residential property into SIPPs would not induce a strong behavioural shift as the checks and balances in the new rules would not make investment in residential property appropriate for most people. In the event, it became clear that there was a groundswell and the provisions would be abused. That is why the Government acted. The Government said over many months previously that they would be prepared to act if there was abuse of the system.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, why did the Chancellor not include the announcement in his speech in the House of Commons?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to put that question to the Chancellor. An announcement was made at the time of the Pre-Budget Report together with a technical note issued by HMRC setting out the background.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that it was clear to those of us who were listening carefully that the Chancellor did make such an announcement, which was welcomed by my honourable friend Vincent Cable from our Front Bench? However, does he also accept that while the Government have taken the right decision, they did so desperately late? I wrote to the Chancellor on 13 June setting out very serious concerns about the implications and I received a reply from the Economic Secretary which reeked of complacency. Will the Government now get some people into the Treasury who understand how markets work, perhaps like the late Harold Lever in the 1974 government?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, these pension simplification proposals were worked through with the industry over an extensive period so that advice and consultation were available. I am grateful for the clarification that mention was made in the speech. On expertise in this matter, I would stress that these rules have been widely supported across the industry in general and I believe that the simplification will help to encourage greater savings into pensions.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, why was it not declared at the outset that this scheme, on which the public relied, as they tend to rely on government, was not going to be implemented for them? Hasn't this got the semblance of a political con trick?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, absolutely not. These proposed changes in the rules were a small part of the general simplification process. Most pension schemes and most members of pension schemes are not affected at all by the proposed changes. That was made very clear over a long period of time. I could take you back to Answers in this House and in the other place where Ministers said that if there was going to be abuse, they would change the rules and keep an eye on these matters. So, nobody has been conned by this. Indeed, the industry itself was well aware of the groundswell that was building up of the potential abuse to these arrangements.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that Ministers in another place consistently defended the decision to include residential property in SIPPs and gave no real indication that a change of mind would happen. That has meant that the pension industry has spent time and money gearing up for changes that were drawn away from them at the eleventh hour. What does the Minister have to say about the costs that have been incurred by the industry? Do the Government have any estimate of those costs?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is not possible to separate the costs associated with this part of the simplification process from the general broad thrust of the changes. However, I believe that it is not correct to say that Ministers did not put people on notice about what was happening. I could take you back to specific Answers including one made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in your Lordships' House back in January 2005 when he indicated that these matters would be kept under review and the Government would act if there was abuse. That is the Government's position on this and other taxation matters.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the announcement by the Chancellor was abused by people who invested in consequence of it. What did the Government expect?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am sorry, my Lords, I did not altogether hear that question.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Chancellor's original announcement was abused by people who invested in consequence of it. What did the Government expect?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the whole purpose of the simplification process was to make it easier for people to save in regulated pensions, and part of that process was to have one set of investment rules across the piece rather than the diverse rules that were around previously. The original assessment was that this would not cause a significant behavioural shift. That proved not to be the case, partly because the industry was whipping up support for investment in these schemes which represented an abuse of the arrangement. The arrangement should have been to enable people to save into their pension plans so that they could build a fund for a solid retirement income. The abuse of it to buy holiday homes and so on had to be stopped; it has been stopped, and that was the right thing to do.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, are there not substantial areas where investments can still be made, in ground rents, equities and unquoted shares? There is still a great range of investment possibilities.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The extent to which ground rents will be permitted under the new arrangements is the subject of the technical note, and will have to wait for the more detailed legislation. But it will still be possible, potentially through collective investment schemes in residential properties, for pension schemes to participate in those as well.

Council Tax

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Under what circumstances and for what reasons an officer of the Valuation Office Agency, or agent of a council, has the right to enter a resident's home for council tax valuation purposes.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, an officer of the Valuation Office Agency has a power, provided by Section 26 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, to enter a resident's home in order to survey and value that property for council tax purposes. This power is only exercised with the permission of the occupier. Councils, however, have no responsibility for council tax valuation, and therefore an officer of the council has no rights of entry to a resident's home for council tax valuation purposes.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As an Australian, I was always impressed by the statement that "an Englishman's home is his castle". People very much resent anyone intruding into their home. With the deferment of the revaluation and the new Bill to abolish necessary revaluation, will the Minister confirm that at the moment any improvements you make to your home do not affect valuation and that only if you either sell the home or the properties are generally revalued might you move into a higher council tax band?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's supplementary question. I ought to remind her of South Australian legislation. I did a bit of research and discovered that Section 26 of the South Australia, Valuation of Land Act 1971 provides that the valuer-general may,
	"enter upon any land and make any inspection, measurement or survey necessary or expedient to determine the value of the land".
	We have a good Australian precedent there. However, the noble Baroness is right in her assessment of the current situation. The position is as she described, and it should remain so. It is worth reminding ourselves that these powers go back to 1992, when the noble Baroness's party was in power, and there were parallel powers for the earlier and rather unpopular poll tax.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, while a householder can stop a valuation and ask a valuation officer to leave, if he does so, under Section 26 of the Act he is then liable to a level two fine for delay and obstruction?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Valuation Office Agency officials act extremely sensitively. They do not enter a person's home forcibly; they do not have the statutory power, or, perhaps, more importantly, the desire to do so. They would only ever enter a home with the prior agreement of the householder and, under the standards set in their own council tax charter, would give seven days' notice wherever possible. For the noble Baroness's information, I can confirm that no new powers of entry are being sought for the Valuation Office Agency. So far as I can make out—I have asked officials to research this—no one has ever been fined, or had proceedings taken against them, under the current powers of the Valuation Office Agency.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that if such officers are admitted, they would not be allowed to take photographs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they would take photographs only with the express permission of the occupier.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. How many Acts of Parliament and pieces of secondary legislation permit a government official to enter someone's property without permission?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an estimate I am not prepared to make off the cuff over the Dispatch Box. I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in powers of entry and that he has a Bill on that subject, so perhaps that is a debate for another day.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Government have taken a very pragmatic view about the necessity for revaluation under the circumstances of Sir Michael Lyons's review. Are they likely to take a similarly pragmatic view about the rebanding of council tax and abandon that for the length of this Parliament as well?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we made it clear when we announced last year that we were not anticipating a revaluation during the lifetime of this Parliament. No doubt Sir Michael Lyons's review will be complete by the end of this year and his report will be prepared. We thought it pragmatic and sensible—the noble Baroness's party agrees with this—to approach the matter in the way in which we have. That is why we have made it clear that revaluation is extremely unlikely to take place during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question that I asked about rebanding?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again, we shall have to look at that very carefully when we receive Sir Michael Lyons's second report.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister assure me, then, that the stories in the papers, which report that people are terrified that their council tax will be affected if they put in a do-it-yourself new bathroom or make some minor improvement, are just scare stories?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, I can give that reassurance. However, I do not think that the situation has been greatly helped by Conservative Party press releases, in particular one dated 5 January this year, which makes it quite plain that the Conservative Party believes that there are new powers to conduct inspections and that fines of £500 will be imposed on people who object to this. I believe that Mrs Spelman MP said that things were so bad that the valuation officer's powers to enter people's homes should be abolished. However, those powers were put in place by the previous Conservative government. I completely agree with the noble Baroness. Perhaps she would like to have a word with Mrs Spelman about the matter.

Homeopathy

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any proposals to withdraw National Health Service funding for homeopathy.

Lord Warner: My Lords, decisions on the commissioning of complementary and alternative therapies, including homeopathy, on the NHS, are matters for primary care trusts. The Government consider that clinical decisions on the use of complementary or alternative treatments should be left to clinicians. However, there is further scope for the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence to include assessment of complementary therapies in its guideline work. The Department of Health will discuss with NICE how we can ensure that clinical guidelines work includes complementary therapies where appropriate.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, is it not the case that the national homeopathic hospital is publicly funded? Is it not rather a scandal that scarce public funds for the National Health Service should be devoted to something that has no scientific basis; and that homeopathy—I refer to homeopathy, as opposed to herbal medicine—cannot work other than as a placebo, because the original substance, by the law of infinitesimals, has been diluted trillions upon trillions of times? Secondly, every authoritative study over more than 150 years, as the Lancet has pointed out, has shown no evidence that it works other than as a placebo. If the Government support placebos, why will they not support funding coloured water, or witchcraft, which is likely to be just as effective and has as much scientific basis?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that there are homeopathic hospitals in the NHS. They have been around for a long time, including when the noble Lord was a Minister in the Treasury, as I recall. On the other point, I made clear that this is a matter for clinicians to decide when they see patients. There was some evidence in the NICE review guideline on cancer and complementary and alternative therapies that recognised that they did not provide a cure for the disease but did offer some help and hope to patients who used them.

Lord Peston: My Lords, how can the department duck out of the fundamental question: if chemistry is a valid science, as most of us were led to believe at school, then homeopathy is surely rubbish? In addition—and I speak as an honorary member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—pharmacists, who have a superb training in science, notably chemistry, also seem to be in a position where they can sell such rubbish to make money. Surely the department, the body most responsible for laying down standards here, cannot just duck out of this by referring to "decentralisation" to clinicians. This is not an interference with clinicians, but a matter of upholding the standards of our whole country.

Lord Warner: My Lords, homeopathic medicines are covered by the same European legislation as all other medicines. Under European law, homeopathic medicines are required to be registered under a simplified scheme. Demonstrations of safety are required, but proof of efficacy and effectiveness, as required of other medicines, is not. Homeopathic medicines are, therefore, not permitted to make medical claims. That has been the position for some time. As I have said, we leave decisions in these matters to clinicians, but we use the good offices of NICE to look at these issues in relation to guidelines on particular treatments.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that any system of medicine that aims to promote general health by reinforcing the body's own healing capacity should be encouraged, researched and funded, and used whenever possible?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we regard issues like these as ones where patients can make many of their own judgments about how to look after themselves, but when they need treatment they go to a doctor, under the NHS, and get advice on the most appropriate therapy required for their condition.

Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to break with tradition and come to the assistance of my noble friend. Is it not the case that the national homeopathic hospital conducts perfectly normative medicine and is it not justified in doing that, irrespective of the efficacy or otherwise of homeopathy, which I believe is only a small part of its practice?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am overwhelmed by the support from my noble friend. Indeed, I am almost speechless—but he is of course right.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is in the NHS's best interests to keep homeopathic practice within its limits, simply to test the interaction between homeopathic and more conventional forms of medicine, especially when one takes into account the number of people who choose to use homeopathic remedies?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot think of any new ways to say, "We leave this to clinicians when they consider the needs of particular patients". However, the House might like to know that the department supports research capacity in complementary and alternative medicine so that we can get a better understanding of the effectiveness of these therapies.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that science is not a fixed discipline, and that there may be things about homeopathy that we do not understand yet? I remember my consultant telling me one day that he did not understand how paracetamol worked, yet that is prescribed regularly under the National Health Service. If homeopathy does not work, could the Minister explain how my goats think it works?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure I am competent to respond to that question.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I offer my noble friend the opportunity to move a little way from the specifics of alternative and complementary medicine to the issue he raised in his Answer about NICE potentially having a role in the assessment of homeopathy. Is he aware that there are grave concerns about NICE in the sense of the length of time that it takes to get assessments of new—or existing—treatments? Although the fast-tracked procedure is very welcome, as is the work that NICE has done, can he give us some reassurance about the resources being there for NICE to tackle this even greater range of therapies and treatments that he suggests it might be involved in?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I chose my words with some care and talked about NICE involvement in relation to guidelines for the most part. Those are separate from the technology appraisals that NICE undertakes in relation to particular drug therapies.

Armed Forces: Eurofighter Typhoon

Lord Garden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What effect the sale to Saudi Arabia of Eurofighter Typhoon and associated training support will have on the planned dates for Royal Air Force operational declarations.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, detailed negotiations for the sale of Typhoon aircraft to Saudi Arabia are ongoing and commercially sensitive. However, we do not expect the sale of Typhoon aircraft to the Royal Saudi Air Force to alter Typhoon's operational employment date with the RAF, which is planned for later this decade.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. After the delays of the entry into service of Eurofighter Typhoon, I am slightly surprised to discover that 48 are in the shed, available for rapid delivery to Saudi Arabia, but let us assume that it is true. What is the Minister going to do about the necessary pilots for training the Saudis? Pilots currently cost £6 million apiece, according to the NAO. Will BAE Systems contribute to the MoD budget to provide more pilots?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as I said, the details relating to the understanding are commercially sensitive and ongoing. None the less, we plan to have sufficient trained aircrew to support our requirement for 80 fast jets on operations and have the funding to do so.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, were the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence consulted by the contractor about the implications for the Royal Air Force of the contract before it was agreed? If so, were the concerns raised addressed to the Minister's satisfaction?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as I am sure the House will appreciate, an agreement of this magnitude is many years in the making and there is still some way to go. Yes, the RAF was fully consulted in the process and I am satisfied. In fact, there are a number of positive advantages to be gained from the increased commitment and the increased numbers of aircraft. We see this very much as a success story. It is positive for British industry. It is positive also for the RAF.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I declare an interest as an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. Does my noble friend agree, as he briefly indicated, that the proposed Typhoon order would be a very good deal for British Aerospace and especially for the highly skilled British workers who work in the sector?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting that point. I would stress that this is an agreement of understanding on a government-to-government transaction between the Saudi Arabian Government and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it has the potential to be positive for the British aerospace industry and to be welcomed.

Procedure of the House

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The report has three main points, which I should draw to your Lordships' attention. First, it proposes additional guidance on amendments at Third Reading. Paragraph 2 states:
	"the practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the bill".
	The Procedure Committee believes that this is an accurate statement of proper practice, and that writing it down will help Members on all sides, including, of course, Ministers. If your Lordships agree, the guidance will take effect immediately.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I think that this is the stage when I can ask the noble Lord a question. Would the added words, which deal with Third Reading amendments, lead to any restriction on the Government being enabled, as provided in paragraph 1,
	"to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill"?
	Would the Government's right to introduce amendments at Third Reading be in any way restricted?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, the current guidance states that amendments at Third Reading enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. That is not altered by anything in the report. The Government can introduce amendments. It is up to the House to decide what is allowed. If it meets with the general approval of the House, there is nothing to stop that happening.
	I shall continue with my opening remarks. Secondly, the report accepts a reduction in the committee's size from 29 to 18 members from the next Session. The important preponderance of Back-Benchers will be preserved. I put this proposal forward myself and I am grateful to colleagues for agreeing to it.
	Finally, the report recommends that the House should sit at 3 pm rather than 2.30 pm on Wednesdays. This arises from the current experiment with debates on Thursdays. The proposal was put forward by groups in the House which have had difficulty scheduling their weekly meetings since the experiment began. I draw your Lordships' attention to certain features of the proposal. The target rising time would remain 10 pm. The normal sitting time of Grand Committee would be put back from 3.30 pm to 7.30 pm to 3.45 pm to 7.45 pm. If agreed, these changes would take effect next week—that is, on Wednesday 1 February—and run for the rest of this Session. I beg to move.

Moved, That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 93)—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	[The report can be found at the following address: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldprohse/93/93.pdf]

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. There are different interpretations of the new wording depending on to whom one talks in the House. The new wording states:
	"The practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the bill".
	As far as I can see, "tidying up the bill" includes clarification and improvement, as under the existing arrangements. It does not include fulfilment of undertakings. The Chairman of Committees said that it does include the fulfilment of undertakings. If that is the case, why is the amendment not more specific? Given that "tidying up the bill" might be narrowly interpreted by Members in future, and may well lead to arguments about what that phrase constitutes, should this matter not be referred to the committee for greater clarification?

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, given that I instigated in the committee a much more robust amendment, it might be useful if I commented on what the Lord Chairman and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I would like something more robust, but there was no majority in the committee for that and I accept that the wording proposed by the committee is right in the circumstances.
	I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours to what the Companion to the Standing Orders actually says. It states:
	"The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are: to clarify any remaining uncertainties; to improve the drafting; and to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill".
	That has not changed. All that has changed is that, in addition, there will be some minor adjustments to the admissibility of amendments at Third Reading, about which I hope the Public Bill Office will be robust.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I want to help my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, as he specifically referred to any amendments that the Government might bring forward at Third Reading. I am a member of the Procedure Committee, as is my noble friend the Chief Whip. We agreed with the proposals because they emphasise and reinforce the current guidelines—it does not take away what currently exists with respect to Third Reading amendments.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the proposal apply to Bills considered in Grand Committee? If so, does that mean that Report will be the only stage where there can be serious votes?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it applies to all Bills, including those dealt with in Grand Committee. I do not think that one should make too much of this. The principal purposes stated in the Companion remain exactly the same, including the third point,
	"to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill".
	All that the amendment does is to strengthen the words slightly so, it is hoped, it will prevent noble Lords introducing entirely new issues before the House at Third Reading. I am afraid that I saw an example of that only a few days ago, which was quite out of order.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, it will strengthen the hand of the Public Bill Office in the advice that it gives to noble Lords when they table amendments at Third Reading. However, the Public Bill Office cannot refuse an amendment if a noble Lord insists on tabling it. It remains the case that the House is self-regulating and it is up to the House to deal with such matters itself. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, there is no disadvantage to the Government in what is proposed; the measure is merely to try to prevent noble Lords introducing completely new issues at Third Reading.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to a matter relating to item 6, where the Procedure Committee suggested that the House meets on Wednesdays at 3pm. I congratulate the committee on coming to that conclusion.
	We have seen many alterations to the sitting times of the House, most of which have not been very good. Moving Thursday sittings from 3 pm to 11 am has been disastrous. It was done to make it convenient for people to get back home to their wives and children at a more reasonable time, which one can understand. But in the good old days, there used to be party meetings at 2.15 pm and the House met at 3 pm. The House was packed on Thursday afternoons. If you were answering questions on a Thursday afternoon, it was a dead scaring business—in the days when Ministers were dead scared of answering questions.
	If you come in at 3 pm now, the House is dead. The other day I came along at 3.30 pm and there were about seven people in the House. There was not even a Doorkeeper in the Princes Chamber. The whole place was completely dead, which is a great pity. The only people in the Chamber were those taking part in the debate.
	It is a great mistake. In the old days, government business was on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and Wednesdays was the set-piece debate day. People enjoyed that. Nowadays people come in at 11 am on Thursdays, register their attendance, and by 1 pm most have gone. I hope that the Procedure Committee will regard this as a great step forward—one of the first of many great steps to make us come back to a reasonable form of existence.
	Parliament has less prominence than it used to have, which is a great pity. The times of sittings have changed in another place, which now sits in the mornings. Prime Minister's Questions take place in the morning, on one day a week instead of two. It is not the same. The same is happening here. The stuffing is going out of Parliament by those alterations. I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider building on the excellent move to change the sitting time on Wednesdays to 3 pm, and change it further to Thursdays at 3 pm so that set-piece debates can take place on Wednesdays and be well attended, as they always were.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, but I think that he is tending to go over old ground. The House itself took the decision to move the debating day from Wednesday to Thursday, and to sit at 11 am on Thursdays. That original time was changed from having a break at lunch to not having a break at lunch. If the report is agreed to, which I hope it will be fairly quickly, the decision will have been made by the House to sit at 3 pm on Thursdays—

Noble Lords: Thursdays?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on Wednesdays. The House made the decision to sit at 11 am on Thursdays, and it was its decision that Thursday should become the debating day.
	I admit that I am fascinated to know what will happen after Whitsun when we go back to doing Government Whip business on Thursdays. It will be quite difficult to get a large House on that day, but that will be for the Government to decide.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have only one question, which I have not had time to check out, so I do not know whether the facts are correct. Currently, on Thursdays judgments take place at 10 am and the House sits at 11 am. There is a small gap between the two. I am led to believe that judgments will now take place on Wednesday mornings, and there will be a long gap between that business finishing and the House sitting. That means that the Chamber will be closed because the Mace is here. Doorkeepers will have to be here, and the Line of Route will be closed. I am not sure whether that is correct, so I hope my noble friend can explain.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the Line of Route will be open from after judgments until the House sits at 3 pm, and the Mace will be taken care of.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Designation of documents for purposes of registration etc.]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 4, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "documents which any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2A) is authorised or required to issue, whether by or under an enactment or otherwise.
	(2A) Those persons are—
	(a) a Minister of the Crown;
	(b) a government department;
	(c) a Northern Ireland department;
	(d) the National Assembly for Wales;
	(e) any other person who carries out functions conferred by or under any enactment that fall to be carried out on behalf of the Crown."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is a relatively straightforward amendment to respond to a concern raised in the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The amendment revises Clause 4 so as to respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report, which drew attention to the fact that the drafting of the clause would, in theory, mean that any document issued under an enactment—whoever issued it—would in theory be covered and could, again in theory as there is no intention whatever of doing so, be designated as an ID card under Clause 4.
	The Committee pointed out at paragraph 13 of its report that this would include:
	"Documents as varied as home information packs or solicitors' practising certificates: any document issued under statutory powers."
	That is clearly not the Government's intention. As has been stated many times, our policy is that the only documents that should be capable of being designated are ones issued in accordance with a statutory requirement by a government department or public authority on behalf of the Crown and not documents that are simply issued under statutory powers. We accept the committee's view that the Bill as drafted could technically be construed as wider than the Government's stated intentions and should therefore be amended. The revised form of words in the amendment uses the same formulation as in Clause 11(5), although of course for a quite different purpose. It provides a means of ensuring that the only documents that could be designated would be those issued by a Minister of the Crown, a government department or a devolved Administration.
	I hope that the wording, revised as I have just indicated, fully meets the legitimate concern raised by the committee. I again express the Government's thanks to the committee for the advice that it has provided in the report. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to formally welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. It is not necessary for the House to look at it in more detail because we were given that opportunity when I pressed the Government on these matters in Committee and she was kind enough to give a full response at that stage. I support the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 4, line 37, leave out from second "provision" to "unless" in line 38 and insert "that he is authorised to make by this section"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 37A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 5 [Applications relating to entries in Register]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 5, line 4, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: This is very much a joint amendment between the opposition parties, as is Amendment No. 46 to delete Clause 6. We seek to replace compulsion by voluntarism. Citizens should not be forced to have ID cards. Compulsion is far too often resorted to by the modern state. That comes from an intensely managerial culture in which regulation rules. That sits uneasily with fundamental rights such as privacy and voluntarism. This Bill is an authentic clash between such rights and managerial efficiency.
	Clause 4 allows the Government to designate any official document so that obtaining or renewing one forces the applicant to apply for an ID card under Clause 5. The amendment gives the citizen a choice. Precisely the same amendment was moved on Report in the other place by the Labour Member for Walthamstow, Mr Gerrard, and it received cross-party support. The vote was lost by 32 votes.
	The Government have made it clear that they will, when ready, designate passports under Clause 4, which will eventually compel around 85 per cent of the adult population to have ID cards. The issue of compulsion runs deep. When Michael Howard proposed compulsory cards as Home Secretary in 1995, as I reminded the House last Monday, that was roundly condemned by Tony Blair. As Home Secretary, David Blunkett reverted to the Tory plan, although he called the cards "entitlement cards"—he rather hid the fact that the entitlement was for the state rather than the citizen.
	Who is to say how any of us might react if we were Home Secretary in a time of suicide bombers? Apparent security gains then tend to dominate thinking. These are just the circumstances where the job of opposition is to counterbalance that natural bias, to probe the proposed measures and to ensure that they are not likely to be counterproductive.
	As the House demonstrated last Monday, it already senses that the potential benefits of compulsory cards are exaggerated; that the financial and privacy costs are being underestimated; and that the whole relationship between the state and the citizen is at stake. We have, I fear, gradually become not just a nanny state, but a snooping state—a surveillance state. Both Houses have long been preoccupied by the declining health of our democracy, which is partly related to that. We have lost much of that essential,
	"vigour and cheerfulness of allegiance",
	as John Pym MP vividly put it 360 years ago—an allegiance which, if active and engaged, will do more to combat crime, withstand terrorism and grapple with the other problems purportedly ameliorated by the ID cards than they can ever do without that allegiance.
	Ministers repeatedly claim that the Government have a mandate for compulsion which it would be improper for us to frustrate. On page 52 of its 111 pages, under the heading "Strong and Secure Borders", the Labour 2005 manifesto said:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	I repeat: "voluntary". So how can it possibly be argued that that is a mandate for a compulsory scheme? If as they now claim the intention all along was for the scheme to be compulsory, they only had to change one crucial word or add one clarifying phrase. The amendment is therefore consistent with the manifesto "voluntary" commitment, leaving this or any other government free to bring forward primary legislation if they want to compel later on. We believe that compulsion warrants nothing short of that.
	Ministers repeatedly say that we are only following Europe and that we are going to have to have EU biometric passports anyhow. The biometric passport, however, will have far less biometric information on it than that proposed for our ID cards, and none of the personal data in Schedule 1, the so-called audit trail data which will record when, where and for what purpose our ID card is used—not forgetting the huge commercial use to be made of the cards. As for the suggestion that we are just catching up with Europe, of the 23 countries for which the LSE identity project obtained comparative data, only 10 had compulsory cards; 10 had voluntary ones and three had none at all. What is more, most of the countries with compulsory cards had local databases. That is reflected in the fact that in the 10 countries with compulsory cards, citizens are charged an average of under £4 per card.
	I briefly revert to the standing of the LSE reports, since Mr Blair had another go at them last week, remarking that he did not think that they represented "an entirely objective assessment". Sir Howard Davies, director of the LSE, has felt it necessary to comprehensively scotch that slur in a letter to the Prime Minister last Friday. Nothing so convinces me of the inadequacy of government claims for compulsory cards as their persistent attempts to rubbish the scrupulous, detailed LSE work, while failing to produce a proper critique or adequate figures of their own.
	As I say, we are wholly unconvinced that a compulsory scheme would succeed in its own terms, even by its own principal yardstick, referred to five times by Mr Blair at Question Time last week; namely, protection against identity fraud or theft. The paper on this subject, produced by the Cabinet Office in 2002, has been severely undermined since by industry spokesmen, NGOs and the LSE report. Claims vis-à-vis money laundering, insurance fraud, card theft and so on are insecurely founded at best, but above all a voluntary scheme would allow citizens who believe in the efficacy of ID cards against identity frauds to have one. There is nothing to stop that under our scheme. Indeed, it would take account of some of the points made rather plangently by opposition Members about certain minority groups who want a card. That would be fine.
	Compulsion, in our view, is excessive, and excessive, ill judged laws beget an equal and opposite response. Would-be terrorists feed off the extremism of those they view as their opponents. They will always outbid a democratic state in ruthlessness.
	A phrase that has been ringing in my ears as I have struggled to find a satisfactory way to explain my deep misgivings about all this is the one used by my wise lawyer father, now dead. He used to say, "You can't do that", in a certain tone of voice. That meant that if you go beyond a certain point you undermine the very institutions, principles and values that the law is there to protect and which have been our beacons. I can see him, or hear him, now, saying that about cutting back juries; about the latest idea that you can convict people of theft without going to court; about outlawing peaceful protest within a kilometre of this place without a permit; about criminalising robust, even offensive, free speech, on the ground that it might be taken as celebrating violence; about detaining people for months without charge or trial; about police arresting citizens for any conduct, vis-à-vis the mild protestor at the Labour Party conference.
	What about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, with that plethora of compulsive state powers? What about camera surveillance via literally millions of CCTV cameras—one for every 14 people in this country, by far the greatest number in the world—or the development of facial recognition technology and vehicle-tracking technology, or the escalating use of mobile-phone tracking technology and the prospect of compulsory retention of communications data for up to six years? Every year there is more regulation, more compulsion and more surveillance. I can hear him say it: "You can't do that".
	As the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, studiously and publicly advised the country last October vis-à-vis this Bill:
	"The extent of the information retained as a core part of the National Identity Register is unwarranted and intrusive . . . It is difficult to see the relevance of all such details . . . Other systems of checks are perfectly feasible".
	He also warned explicitly as follows:
	"The Information Commissioner is concerned about the way in which demands will grow for individuals to prove their identity. The broad purposes permit function creep into unforeseen and perhaps unacceptable areas of private life".
	As one example of that, just consider how Parliament has dealt with the illegal retention in police records of 50,000 sets of fingerprints and DNA samples. Instead of expunging them and making sure that the illegality did not recur, this Government forced through Section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act in 2001 to validate the illegality and, much worse, allowed fingerprints and DNA to be stored in future, whether or not any citizen had been convicted or even charged with an offence. Those highly sensitive data are now held on more than 20,000 innocent juveniles. "Not innocent", I hear new Labour say, "we just didn't have the evidence". The writing really is on the wall.
	The amendment, far from being a wrecking one, is an enabling one. Given the doubts about the technology, the cost, the corruptibility, the human rights and cultural consequences of this compulsory scheme, a voluntary scheme will enable us to see just how it works before the country is propelled into compulsion. If ever a proposal warranted that degree of caution and prudence, this is it.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he elucidate on where we are? He mentioned Amendment No. 46. Are we at the same time debating that amendment to leave out Clause 6? He made a general speech against compulsion. Are we dealing with all the amendments together or will we deal with Amendment No. 46 separately?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, because it is expected that there will be a vote on both amendments—both clauses are important in the voluntary/compulsory debate—Amendment No. 46 will be moved separately. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will later move the amendment to leave out Clause 6, which will be voted on separately.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may mention an issue arising out of that interesting debate, part of it on the old question of ID cards. I have no problem in producing a case in which I believe for having compulsory ID cards. I have no difficulty in producing a case for having no ID cards. However, I cannot for the life of me understand the case for ID cards which are totally voluntary.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall briefly respond to that intervention. The answer is that 10 European countries have voluntary cards. In Holland, the take-up is 30 per cent. It is extremely useful for those anxious about identity theft or fraud, on which the Prime Minister concentrated last week, because if you believe that the card stops such theft or fraud it is one way of protecting your identity.
	For certain citizens and others mentioned by noble Lords in previous debates who want identity cards for convenience and so forth, there is a case for having voluntary cards. Many countries have them. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I consider the amendment of great importance. It raises fundamental issues of liberty. Noble Lords will recall that in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith saw written on the walls of the Ministry of Truth "War is peace. Freedom is slavery". I was reminded of those words the other day when some noble Lords on the government Benches said that requiring a person to register, requiring a person to buy an identity card, was to grant him "a new kind of freedom". Those were the very words used by the noble Lord, Lord Gould, on 15 November last year, at col. 1012, when talking about these matters.
	I believe that most people will agree that while identity cards might bring some benefits to the individual, compulsory registration means an inroad into liberty and privacy and that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the weekend that identity cards would make it easier for the citizen to deal with the state, what he really meant was that they would make it easier for the state to deal with the citizen.
	I can see that creeping compulsion is, from the point of view of the Home Office, a convenient way of proceeding. But is it really right that it should be a lottery as to when any particular person is, as it were, caught in the spider's web; that it should depend on a circumstance entirely outside the individual's control and for which he is in no way to blame, such as when his driving licence happens to come up for renewal? It will be a complete lottery. The Government's scheme means that the state will be saying to the individual: "You are entitled to a driving licence. You have done nothing wrong to disentitle you from having a driving licence. But we will not give you one unless you take a step which has nothing whatever to do with the requirements of the Road Traffic Acts and your ability to drive. We will not give you one unless you buy an identity card and submit to registration". How on earth can that be right?
	The Government's scheme is capricious and unfair and we should not support it.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in moving the amendment, made a comprehensive and persuasive speech. Therefore, I can be brief. He started, I think rightly, and as I was going to, by quoting from the Labour Party manifesto. There is a considerable contrast between the words quoted from the manifesto and the words used by the Minister on the fourth day of our proceedings, when she said:
	"However, in a system that has been designed from the outset to be compulsory—it has been said that we will introduce it in stages, but always within the context of a compulsory scheme—it is difficult to see what is stealth-like about that. It has been very open".
	She went on:
	"In order to phase in the introduction of ID cards and avoid any big-bang move to compulsion, it has always been our intention that certain documents would be designated under Clause 4".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. 1008.]
	Those words "big-bang move to compulsion" have a certain resonance in this situation.
	My noble friend was absolutely right when he talked about creeping compulsion. The noble Baroness said that she could see nothing stealth-like about this. But, clearly, the Government believe—and I do not challenge them—that many people find the idea of having an identity card for some purposes quite attractive and will therefore go along with it, particularly if it is doled out relatively painlessly when, in any case, you have to apply for the renewal of a passport, or whatever else may be created as a designated document later.
	However, the issue is not just about identity cards. It is certainly understandable that if you have a passport you may feel that an identity card, for example, is a useful tool for getting rather more simply around Europe. I do not challenge that. But the point of this amendment is that it is attached to a clause that deals with the register. The register is at the heart of the criticisms made about this Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted from the Information Commissioner and the extent of the information that is to be held on the register. It seems to me that while it may be useful and convenient to have an identity card, you should not—certainly not until the Government have made it plain that they can manage this whole scheme and deal with the criticisms made in our debates—be forced to go on the register. One thing people are entitled to know is that the register will work in a manageable way and will not have the potential weaknesses identified during our debates.
	I did not take part in the debate last Thursday in this House initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the firearms register and the failure of the Home Office to meet the statutory requirements imposed on it by Parliament in 1997. It is an appalling story of incompetence—and worse—by the Home Office in introducing a scheme that Parliament believed was necessary.
	One feature that struck me about that debate, when I read it, was the extraordinary generosity of those noble Lords taking part. They somehow forgave Ministers—indeed, were nice to them—as they defended the government position. The Ministers said it was all absolutely appalling; they said, "Of course, it is shocking that we have been unable to introduce a workable scheme". They kept saying, "We are as disappointed as anyone in this Chamber". Yet those Ministers are responsible for their department. If they are incapable of setting up a firearms register in eight years, why should we imagine that they are capable of setting up the register required under this Bill in an acceptable and workable way? Until they have proved their capacity to do that job, I do not believe that we should accept people being compelled to have their names on the register. I warmly support the amendment.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I want to make a quick comment. The Bill will go through Parliament whether we like it or not. However, before the entire thing becomes final and properly compulsory, we should go only into a voluntary phase to test the idea. That is why I approve of this amendment, for it means that the first people to volunteer to try that out—which will be several million people, since many people approve of it—can at least self-select who will be doing that.
	Your Lordships must remember that the Bill currently provides that when you are next issued with a passport or driving licence, Clause 12 applies to you. It is worth looking quickly at what that clause insists you do. It applies to you, remember, and not to refugees, who have their own thing, or to people who are already here illegally because they will be in hiding anyway. I was reminded of how people such as escaped prisoners hid from the Germans during the war—not easily, but it was done. If it is really thought that all the illegal immigrants are going to be rounded up just because some people are carrying ID cards, then you have another think coming.
	The bit which will apply to you from day one, when you are given your next passport or driving licence, is:
	"An individual . . . must notify the Secretary of State about . . . every prescribed change of circumstances . . . within the prescribed period . . . the Secretary of State may require him to . . . otherwise . . . provide such information as may be required",
	to verify,
	"the information that may be entered",
	and otherwise ensure,
	"that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry . . . An individual"—
	that is, you, if contravening any of these requirements—
	"shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000".
	So, if noble Lords do not vote for the amendment, they are accepting that they will fulfil all those details the next time they renew their passport or driving licence. Personally, until we have decided that Parliament will proceed to compulsion, I believe that the scheme should be entirely voluntary.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to the Labour Party manifesto from the previous election. Looking at the Bill, one sees that of 45 clauses, three relate to identity cards. The offences in Clauses 27 to 32 relate to the register. It is about setting up a national identity register to which the identity card is an adjunct.
	If one looks at the manifesto, under the heading "Strong and Secure Borders", the Labour Party set out that,
	"Across the world there is a drive to increase the security of identity documents and we cannot be left behind. From next year we are introducing biometric 'ePassports'. It makes sense to provide citizens with an equally secure identity card to protect them at home from identity theft and clamp down on illegal working and fraudulent use of public services. We will introduce ID cards"—
	that phrase is set out in large type on page 55—
	"including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	The emphasis in the manifesto is entirely on identity cards as some form of home passport. It does not set out a compulsory scheme for the introduction of a national identity register, with all the requirements set out in the various schedules. So the Government cannot rely on the manifesto at the election as authorising the scheme that they now put forward in the Bill.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, a question occurred to me during the earlier speeches. One document to which this is intended to apply is a passport. A passport used to be a document that, in loud and ringing terms, if the Government were kind enough to give you one, commanded other governments to assist your travel and let you go freely around their country. It is now a document that you must have before you are allowed to travel at all. Instead of being a privilege given by the government, it is now compulsory. Apparently, now, if I want that document, without which I cannot travel—to exercise the freedom to which I am entitled of travelling to anywhere in the world—not only do I have to apply and pay for it, as I have always had to, I must allow my particulars to be entered on a different register and pay extra to get an identity card.
	Is it compatible with the freedom of the individual and the Human Rights Act that one shall be debarred from exercising the freedom to move about the world unless one "chooses" to go on some other government register and to pay them an extra fee for that privilege? Surely that provision is bound to be struck down as contrary to human rights.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made an extremely important point that may not have struck most of us. The Bill is a rather ominous sign of the extent to which government has been taken over by spin. One of the main reasons why people have not been as willing to vote as they should be is that they dislike too much spin. Spin has been mounting. It has been the most enormous spin to say to the public: "We are offering you a Bill under which, if you want it, you will get a voluntary identity card that will protect you in all sorts of ways". Some time later, as the Bill went through Parliament, the Government have admitted that it is intended to be compulsory and that all those facts about you will have to be on the register, whether you like it or not. That is the simple point. It was spin. It was an easy way to get people to accept the idea of identity cards from the beginning.
	The noble Lord, Lord Gould, said from the Government Benches that there had been various polls in which people said that they wanted identity cards. That was a response to the spin. We are now faced with the compulsion about which noble Lords have spoken. Later, we may probe the question of how we handle the way in which that compulsion is finally brought about through the Bill, but that was a big spin. It has done a lot of damage to public trust in Parliament; trust in Members of Parliament; and, perhaps, in the Lords—trust in government. That is far more damaging than the Bill itself.
	This is a good amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made an extremely good speech. He was quite alone on his Benches when he started, until a couple of people trickled in—luckily, before he had finished.
	He looked a lonely figure but it was a splendid speech. I agreed with every word of it. I support the amendment.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall also support the amendment to remove Clause 6. Those noble Lords who heard the opening speech by the noble Lord would understand, I think, that all the new measures which have been taken by this Government over a quite long period of time contain the elements of a fascist state.

Lord Howie of Troon: Hang on—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord was not present to listen to the noble Lord's opening speech—

Lord Howie of Troon: I am listening to you.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he is listening to me. I hope that he will because I have been around a long time. Indeed, I was in the Labour Party for 54 years. It was a Labour Party which would not have dreamt of bringing forward a Bill of this kind. Nor in fact would it have brought forward many of the measures which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, outlined in his opening speech.
	I repeat that some of those measures have the elements of a fascist state. This country is preaching to many other countries about democracy. It wants democracy in Iraq; it wants democracy in Iran. It wants democracy everywhere except perhaps in this country where the measures that it is introducing are undermining the democracy which has been built up over many hundreds of years. I do not deny that those are strong statements. But the fact of the matter is that there is a creeping competence for all kinds of authorities in this country to have control over the individual.
	Let us consider some of the incidents of late. An author on the BBC makes a certain statement about homosexuals and before long the police are telephoning her or are on her doorstep asking her to justify those statements. That is just one instance. The police are becoming the arbiters of free speech. That is very serious indeed. Members of this House and of the House of Commons should understand exactly how their freedoms are being undermined by a host of measures which are coming forward piecemeal. If they do not do so they will find themselves in a state where the Government have complete and utter control over the individual; and, of course, in this country the freedom of the individual has always been the bedrock of our very democracy which we have exported, and still seek to export, to other countries. If we are not careful, there is a real danger that we shall be in the sort of society which many of us fought against in the last war.
	I know that my former noble friends do not like to hear me say these things, but perhaps it is proper that I should say them because I had been in the Labour Party for 54 years before they expelled me and therefore I do know what the Labour Party that I joined stood for. It did not stand for measures such as the identity card now being put forward by new Labour.
	We have before us a Bill that, in the first instance, is supposed to be a voluntary scheme. We have been assured that it will not be necessary, and that the Government will never make it necessary, for identity cards to be carried at all times. Yet on the "Any Questions" programme broadcast last Friday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, first, that they should be compulsory and that if they were not, they would not be any good; and, secondly, that they should be carried at all times. In other words, the police will be able to come up to you and say, "Papers", whether they say "please" or not.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should clarify that that is not what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I have the advantage of having a transcript of that interview. In relation to whether the cards should be compulsory, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said the following:
	"Government policy is that it'll be a matter for Parliament to decide whether they ultimately become compulsory".
	In response to a second question from Mr Dimbleby, he further added:
	"I think the government takes the view that to get the full benefits they will ultimately have to become compulsory".

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that confirms exactly what I have been saying: that although they are bringing forward a voluntary Bill at this point, the Government believe that it will become compulsory. If the card is compulsory, it will then be compulsory for people to carry the cards around with them and they can be challenged by the police at any point, wherever they may be. The noble Lord on the Front Bench shakes his head, but I fear that that is exactly what will happen.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that we have made it absolutely clear to the House that the two issues are not to be conflated. The Government have underlined the fact that it will not be necessary to carry the identity card. That is made clear from the form this Bill takes.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad to have that assurance on the record and I hope it will be repeated many times. As I have said, I support the amendment and will support the subsequent amendment to get rid of Clause 6.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has the capacity to needle people and is always fascinating to listen to. A number of things he has said sound a ring of truth. He has said some things that are disagreeable to some people, but it is nevertheless very important that he has said them.
	In comparison to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have only a simple question to put to the Minister. She need not be too agitated. It follows on what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Am I right in believing that if the Bill is passed in the form it is in now, if you move house you will have to let the appropriate department know that you have done so? If you do not let the department know, are you then fined £1,000?

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I wonder if I can possibly help the Government. It seems that they have built a high and strong stone wall behind them and that the Pyramus and Thisbe on the Front Bench opposite are feeling embarrassed and so have encouraged their colleagues not to support them in order to get the legislation out of the way quickly. There is a fairly simple solution to all this, one that goes to an amendment I have tabled for consideration later. The passport is actually a voluntary document. According to the Government, biometric passports were to have been introduced in October of last year. With the biometric passport will go the new identity card, which will also be voluntary. Since 80 or 90 per cent of this country's population already have passports and could be issued with the identity cards at a cost of less than £10, it seems logical to encourage as many people as possible to register with the passports authority in order that they may have a simple identity card.
	As your Lordships will be aware, the main people who do not carry passports are those of retirement age, half of whom do not carry them. Thus it would be a simple matter to issue passports to everyone, possibly free of charge, in the same way as we receive bus passes—which are, of course, a proof of identity. That would be voluntary. A passport is a voluntary document; the fact that you cannot travel without it is an encouragement to have one if you want to travel. But the idea of what should have been called the identity cards register is very worrying, and the Government should think of—I have forgotten the chap—Sisyphus, I think, who rolled his stone up the hill, and then it came rolling down. They may shortly be overwhelmed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Swindon, struck a chord with me when he spoke about fascism and those awful phrases you would hear in some parts of Europe, often in German, such as "Papier, bitte", followed by "Papiers nicht in ordnung"—I apologise for using a foreign language—and it struck me that I should ask these countries. I have beside me an Act of Parliament from one of those former fascist countries. It has 46 clauses, not 45, that are designed to protect the individual from exactly the sort of thing we are now trying to introduce. I shall read it rather than say it: it is the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, the German law that says that the individual is free, the data are his, they may not be transferred from one government department to another, and he also has Hoheit, or the intellectual property.
	It is strange to me, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Swindon, that after all these years we should be swinging so far backwards and recognising that most of the new members of the EU are longing for the days when they are not required to carry papers with them day and night, and where officials do not have the right to misread papers should it suit them in order to intern someone.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was referring to remarks made by me.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I know the noble Lord well. I thought I did say the noble Lord, Lord Swindon.

Noble Lords: Stoddart.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am so sorry. Those of us who do not have the "of" after our name get confused. I have always associated the noble Lord with Swindon. I apologise for that.
	The point I am making is that it is perfectly easy if we follow the simple route of allowing a voluntary document such as a passport to be used as proof of identity above all else. I do not rest my case entirely on that, because I have an amendment later and I would like to remind the Minister. I am still not sure whether there will be one identity card, and only one, or whether there will be lots of them. That is my fear, and if there are to be lots of cards, every one of them must be voluntary.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I strongly support this important amendment. The debate has ranged widely over the whole issue of compulsion. I have amendments later on that address how the move should be made from the initial period to one of compulsion for all. I shall keep my remarks on that rather more focused matter until I move the amendments to leave out Clauses 6 and 7.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, spoke with both passion and, in his own way, compulsion about the problems we face with this Bill, the tension between compulsion and voluntarism, and the whole issue of what we may face if we allow what is a flawed Bill to go ahead with this drafting of Clause 5. We are on Report, so I will not go into the arguments on that. Suffice it to say that I agree entirely with his arguments on that score. Some of my speeches today will be even briefer than usual, as noble Lords can tell by the tone of my voice that the bug that is going round the House has found its way finally to me.
	The Government have not persuaded me that their system, which forces us to sign up to a gargantuan register with its intrusive audit trail of recording every part of our lives, is the right way forward. That is not the system which the public think is waiting in the wings. As ever, we on this side have no criticism of the Minister. She is a supreme advocate, but she has not been given the right material with which to work in this case. I dare to suggest that even the noble Baroness cannot make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
	My noble friend Lord Waddington talked about creeping compulsion and asked whether it should be a lottery regarding when any individual should be caught in the web. He referred in particular to applying for driving licences. I note that in Committee the Minister said that at the moment the Government have no plans to designate driving licences, but Clause 4 gives them that opportunity. In Committee I asked the Minister whether she would categorically give the assurance that the Government would therefore not seek to overturn the decision of this House in the Road Safety Bill when we removed Clauses 29 and 30, which gave the Government in that Bill the authority to withdraw current driving licences. That could be used to issue driving licences to all and require registration and the issuing of an ID card. If the noble Baroness can give us that assurance today, it would be helpful. I have tabled a later amendment on which I can explore that matter in more detail.
	The objective of this group of amendments is admirably simple: to require the Government to keep to their manifesto commitment that they would introduce ID cards,
	"including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	As we have heard this afternoon, that is not what this Bill does. What it says is that if you apply for a passport, you must apply to go on the national identity register and therefore have an ID card. As noble Lords have asked, what is voluntary about that?
	In Committee, the Minister estimated that by the end of the initial period, about 85 per cent of the population would have been forced to have an ID card as a result of applying for passports and going on the register. That is not what any normal person reading the manifesto would have expected. It was put with great clarity in another place by the Minister's honourable friend Mr Neil Gerrard when he moved this amendment. He said:
	"Any normal person—by that I mean people outside this place—would interpret that as, 'When I renew my passport, I can choose whether to go on the register and have an ID card'. That is what 'initially voluntary' would mean to anyone who read it".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/05; col. 748.]
	I entirely agree with him. The amendment would make it possible to be issued with a designated document without being forced to go on the national identity register. The individual would have a real choice, and can choose to go on the register and have an ID card—there is nothing to stop them.
	If the Government intended to make it compulsory to have an ID card from the word go when you apply for a passport, they should have said so clearly in the manifesto. But the obfuscation has continued in our debates. In Committee the Minister said:
	"There is no need for any person who does not wish to put his name on the register to so register unless and until it becomes compulsory".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 998.]
	I reflected very carefully on what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said because a little later, on 12 December, the Minister said:
	"They can either apply for a new passport and get an ID card at the same time; or not get a new passport".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. 1069.]
	The Government's definition of "voluntary" is very different from anything that I have ever come across. It is a case of, "Have an ID card or don't leave the country". That is not right. I support the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I greatly welcome the comments made so far in this debate. I hope that I will be able to explain to the House more clearly why I fundamentally disagree with this amendment. The noble Baroness says that passports do not constitute voluntary documents. However, she will know that what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said is correct and that passports do constitute voluntary documents.
	No person in this country is ever compelled to apply for such a document. There are now provisions with which each of us, if we are desirous of having a passport, must comply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, suggested that none of the information contained in Schedule 1 would be required now. That is simply and plainly wrong. The information listed in Schedule 1 makes clear that it is already required for passport applications and so it is already held on the United Kingdom Passport Service database; for example, name, date of birth, nationality and address.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am going to save the noble Baroness some time. I never suggested that none of the information in Schedule 1 is currently part of the passport. I simply said that a great deal more information was required under Schedule 1 than is required for a passport, including personal data.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that that is what the noble Lord intended to say and I am grateful for the clarification. My note, and I accept that my note may be wrong, showed that the noble Lord said:
	"None of the information contained in Schedule 1 would be required".
	Of course, the noble Lord accepts that much of this information is already required for passports.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that nobody was required to apply for a passport. Has it never occurred to her that many people's employers may require them to travel? Granted, they can be sacked if they refuse to apply, but does she really regard it as very voluntary if you stand to lose your job? Does it therefore not matter because it is voluntary?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I do not say that. What I do say is that we have to look at the position that we currently face. Today, each of us has to comply with the provisions set out in the current regulations when obtaining a passport. If we fail to comply with those regulations, we will not be granted a passport. When the biometric data, which we will have to include in order to have a valid passport, is introduced—and it will come in this year—each of us, if we want a new passport, will have to comply with those regulations.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the Minister is about to do something she did in Committee, which is to confuse the biometric data required for the new passport under the e-borders initiative—which will be held on the passport and not in a central registry, and will be extremely useful for validating that the passport is yours locally, in, for example, an airport or other port of entry—with the biometric data proposed to be held on the national identity register. It is not the same biometric data, need not be the same biometric data and probably will not be the same biometric data as that proposed to be held on the national identity register under this Bill. The two things are completely different and it is dangerous to confuse them.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says, but he knows as well as I do that, as we move forward, to make our data compatible with others, biometric data will have to be included. I have made clear from this Dispatch Box that the Government intend that to be the case in order that we can have the most secure passports possible, in accordance with current understanding of good practice. That is what I refer to.
	Noble Lords should be aware that the Government intend that, in due course, those improvements will come in whether or not we have this particular ID card. One looks at the current position. Noble Lords will know that we already have provisions in this regard, which are lawful, and have been deemed so by those who have looked at this issue. Indeed, it is right to remind your noble Lordships that the Government's intent in this regard has been very clear for a significant period. These amendments would make registration and the issue of an identity card optional extras for anyone applying for a designated document, such as a British passport or a residence permit for foreign nationals. We have always been clear that the identity card scheme is designed and intended eventually to become a compulsory scheme for all UK residents and that, in the second phase of the scheme, it will be a requirement to register with a civil penalty regime for failure to do so.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if it has always been the Government's intention for this to be a compulsory system, why did the Labour Party not put it into its manifesto for the last election, for the people's consideration?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we did put it into our manifesto.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot find the word "compulsory".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we made it absolutely clear—we should not by any means misdirect ourselves—that we would reintroduce the Bill that had been before the House before the election. That is exactly what we did. These provisions were in the previous Bill. No one in this House should allow themselves to be misled in this regard. The noble Baroness is suggesting that we are playing at semantics on what "initially" meant. We made it clear that the voluntary nature of the scheme would be that we would roll out this procedure in accordance with passports as people came to apply for them—that that would be the initial stage. Then a second stage, with compulsion so that everyone had to have an ID card, would come about. We also made it clear that it was important to have that debate in principle.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it really is not good enough for the noble Baroness to say that it was made clear. There was no reference in the manifesto to the so-called second phase or compulsion. How can that be clear?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it was debated at length in the Commons and debated in this House. To put this to rest, I shall be happy to go through the chronology, because we need to make sure that the issue is finally dealt with comprehensively.
	The first phase was to enable a sensible phased introduction of identity cards. Once passports and residence permits are designated it means that, as British nationals resident in the United Kingdom renew or apply for their passports, and as foreign nationals apply for or renew their residence permits, they will be entered on the national identity register and issued with ID cards. That should not come as a surprise to anyone, as I have said. When the Government issued our first consultation document in 2002 on what were then termed "entitlement cards"—the noble Lord referred to that in opening this debate—one of the options canvassed was for a universal scheme linked to passports. When we announced the decision in principle to introduce identity cards—as long ago as November 2003—it was made clear that there would be a two-stage scheme. Again, it was stated that the second stage would be compulsory but, in the first stage, as well as introducing a voluntary plain identity card for those who did not have a passport, it was made clear that the intention was to link the issue of identity cards to that of more secure passports.
	Indeed, we stated in Identity Cards: The next steps—Cm 6020, the policy document published at the time—that:
	"By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document".
	When we published the draft Identity Cards Bill in April 2004, not only was "must" included in Clause 5(2), just as it is now, but it was also in Clause 8(6) in the draft Bill, which is equivalent to Clause 8(7) in the present Bill. Again, we were very clear that in the first stage of the scheme there would be no possibility of obtaining a designated document, such as a passport, without an identity card.
	Paragraph 2.17 of the consultation paper on the draft Bill—Cm 6178—stated:
	"Once a document such as a passport has been designated as an ID card, this will be the only form in which it will be available—i.e. there will be no 'non-ID card' variants. It would undermine confidence in the system if there were to be identity documents available on demand at different levels of security".

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it may have been stated in Bills and in command papers, but 40 million people are to go on to this register. The Government went to the country to obtain authority to continue in government and they claim authority for this Bill. Why did the Government not say that the scheme was to be compulsory? That word does not appear in the manifesto.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is playing with words. Initially, which means "at the first", I explained to the House why and how we propose the two-stage process. We have not varied it. I absolutely understand the position of the noble Lord and those who sit on his Benches. The Liberal Democrats say that they do not feel bound by the Salisbury convention. They do not therefore pay any attention to the fact that the Government were voted in by the people of this country and that we have a majority. Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches take a different view. They say that they do feel bound by the convention, but that, in this regard, they can disregard it because of the way in which it was stated.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, on Report, I hate intervention. It is the last resort. I made it clear at the beginning of our debates in Committee, when the Minister's noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock intervened, that we on these Benches would work with and by the Salisbury convention. We are doing that, and will continue to do that, throughout every stage of this Bill. The noble Baroness is adducing an argument on semantics. It is her argument, not ours.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I of course take note of what the noble Baroness said. Therefore, I shall remind the House what the report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords stated about the convention at Recommendation 7:
	"The principles underlying the 'Salisbury Convention' remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the 'mandate' doctrine should continue to be observed: where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments".
	In this regard, the Government have been absolutely clear that their policy was for identity cards; that their policy was for compulsory cards; and that this is the way in which we seek to deliver them. It was our clear intention throughout the period 2002 to 2005, before the general election, that this procedure would be adopted; that is, the same procedure that comes before the House today. It would not be right to resile from that position now.
	I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made a good point when he said that we either have a compulsory scheme or we do not. The arguments for compulsion are strong. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, sought to compare the firearms register with this register. I remind him that we have chosen the passport agency because it has a proven track record of delivery—on time, on budget—and it has gained the confidence of the public. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said quite rightly that this ID card scheme is going to happen anyway. I agree with him. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that this scheme will be able to deal with the human rights of individuals, particularly in relation to the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. This issue was looked at comprehensively. I can reassure the noble Viscount that a compulsory identity card scheme is compatible with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. In its report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights confirmed at paragraph 4.5:
	"A requirement to have or to carry some form of identity cards does not of itself raise human rights issues as has been established by the European Court of Human Rights. Many Council of Europe countries operate identity card schemes which are generally considered to comply with the ECHR".

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my question. I did not ask whether it was compatible with human rights to have identity cards, but whether it was compatible with human rights to say that you cannot travel unless, in addition to getting a passport, you pay for something extra which you do not want. The indirect compulsion denies me the right to travel if I apply only for a passport that I do want, but not for an identity card that I do not want.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, for the moment, until the scheme becomes compulsory, the noble Viscount will be able to choose whether to have an identity card, when such cards become available. However, the scheme is a two-part scheme and has been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I invite the noble Viscount to look at its report. The committee believes that the scheme we propose, which includes human rights as part of the foundation stone, is compatible with the ECHR, and does not in any way transgress in a manner that should cause concern. We have dealt with that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, mentioned spin. We have been clear about what has been offered to members of the public. The Government have been utterly straightforward and frank in that regard.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says, but can I remind him that if we were in a fascist state, as he purports, his ability vigorously to argue and debate and to put forward his views would be denied him? I am proud that he has the liberty and opportunity to say whatever he likes with the appropriate degree of vigour and vim. Therefore, our democracy is in good health.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the ability to impose fines. People will have to notify changes of address. On the previous occasion we debated such matters, we said that our proposals would allow such changes to be swift and easy. The noble Earl will know that we already have a requirement to notify any changes of name and address in relation to driving licences, with a criminal penalty and maximum fine of £1,000 for a failure to comply. That has been the case for a number of years and it does not seem to have caused us too much difficulty, so I do not suppose that this will be very different.
	The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, suggested that we should give everyone a passport free of charge. That may be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but the fiscal realities of doing that are relatively clear.
	We have a clear issue between Members of this House. The Government say that this is part of our manifesto. It means that we will have a cost-effective and cost-efficient system, and the two issues go together. I invite noble Lords not to press the amendment, because to do so would significantly contravene the clear intention of the people of this country who entrusted the organisation of these matters to this Government. We now form this Government and we ask noble Lords to reflect that in the way that they take these amendments forward.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who spoke in the debate, which has gone on for an hour and 10 minutes. I note that not one speaker spoke in favour of the Government's position on the matter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, but she did not address one of the arguments in my opening speech. I like to think that that was because she was unable to answer any of the points that I made. It is breathtaking that the noble Baroness ended her defence of the Government's position by saying that they have a clear manifesto entitlement. If ever a matter was not merely not clear but rather clearer in the opposite direction, that has been made manifestly plain this afternoon. This is a very important matter on which the opinion of the House should be tested.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 186; Not-Contents, 142

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 5, line 24, after "at" insert "an agreed place and time or (in the absence of agreement) at"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords opposite will see this as something of a win for them. These amendments seek to clarify that appointments to attend an enrolment centre will, where possible, be at a convenient place and time for the individual. That issue was raised by noble Lords from both parties opposite at an earlier stage of the Bill. The amendments relate to Clauses 5, 9 and 12, and take effect when an individual makes an application to be entered into the register, when an individual already entered becomes subject to compulsory registration and when an individual notifies the agency of changes to their circumstances.
	The amendments respond to the concern that there should be a provision in the Bill confirming that individuals would be offered a choice of appointment dates and times. It has always been our intention to offer such a choice of appointments and I am happy to confirm this by way of these amendments. However, these amendments do not exclude the possibility that some individuals may, at some point, be required to attend at a specified place and time if it has proved impossible to come to an agreement.
	I am sure your Lordships will agree that, although we do intend to offer individuals a choice of when to enrol, a means to ensure that individuals attend is ultimately required. The possibility of unilaterally setting an appointment time because it has been impossible to come to an agreement about a convenient time is one which will not be used until the scheme becomes compulsory. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I spoke on this topic in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. Of course, whether it is of any great value to the individual still depends on the number and type of locations chosen for attendance and the degree of convenience that can be provided.
	During that debate it was pointed out that in some parts of the United Kingdom the distances might be great or the time taken to travel anywhere might be large. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us at the end of this debate, or perhaps give some indication, of the scale of provision that the Government envisage. Unless they provide a sufficient number of locations, well suited to the convenience of people, this will still be a pretty intolerable burden imposed, particularly on those who do not find travel easy or for whom there are few facilities for travel.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, could I ask whether such locations will be provided on every inhabited island, particularly when trying to roll out this scheme to the northern and western islands of Scotland?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing forward the amendment, which is a considerable advance on where we were and takes into account most of the nub of what I was endeavouring to achieve in a previous amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
	Obviously, when we had the earlier debate, I think the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I were at loggerheads about numbers. I cannot really give much more detail. When we had that debate it was clear, at least from the way in which the UK Passport Service was developing, that it would have many more fixed-point locations. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government envisage that a person will have to travel no more than one hour to get to an enrolment centre.
	The other important point I made at the earlier stage of debate on this was that we will be able to establish and develop—it is so intended—mobile enrolment centres. The question of whether we could have an enrolment centre on every inhabited island does not really arise. What we will be able to do is to take enrolment to every inhabited island, if that is the appropriate, efficient and effective way of doing it. Of course we will need to be sensitive to those who have acute mobility problems and so on.
	This is a service that will be sensitively developed and designed. I have no doubt that we will be able to provide many more points of contact between a service based around the UK Passport Service than is currently the case, with very few UK Passport Service centres and locations.
	In some way that travels towards those issues concerning the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I hope that it covers the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am glad to hear that the amendment is welcomed across your Lordships' House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 5, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make by this section is exercisable, on the first occasion on which regulations are made under this section, only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [Power of Secretary of State to require registration]:
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Leave out Clause 6.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we are romping through this afternoon with this wonderful co-operation between my Benches and those of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am sure that Members of the Benches opposite will have a great debt to pay to these Benches by the end of the day as the, shall we say, feisty parts of the debate are being dealt with so speedily. That is my excuse for that interchange and I will stop at that before I sink myself further.
	In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 52H and 54A. Amendment No. 46 would remove Clause 6 from the Bill and the other amendments are consequential to that. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the transition from a so-called voluntary system of ID cards into an all-out compulsory scheme should be made by primary legislation. It is consistent with the Government's commitment in their manifesto that the scheme would be rolled out initially on a voluntary basis. The transition to full compulsion, we say, is a matter of public importance. This is a skeleton Bill and we need to be able to respond effectively to the impact of the so-called voluntary period of registration on the whole process of people entering upon the register, obtaining an ID card and then entering the changes on that register as they move or their circumstances change.
	The Government want that transition to all-out compulsion to be made by order, albeit by the novel process of a super-affirmative statutory instrument. We acknowledge that this is an improvement on the usual affirmative procedure, but we believe that it is not robust enough to allow for proper parliamentary consideration of the operation and costs of the ID card scheme during the initial period.
	In Committee, I asked the Government to justify the super-affirmative process itself and to explain how it would operate if the House ultimately decided that it would be right to go down this route instead of insisting on primary legislation. There was a very full debate at cols. 1058 to 1073 on 12 December. Since we are on Report I will summarise only the major parts of that debate.
	We submit that the Government have not yet proved the case for all-out compulsion based on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill—an enabling Bill—leaves significant questions unanswered. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, at paragraph 248 of its 4th Report 2003–04, said:
	"The move to compulsion is a step of such importance that it should only be taken after the scrutiny afforded by primary legislation: the proposed super-affirmative procedure is not adequate".
	We agree with that. The House of Lords Constitution Committee, in paragraph 9 of its Third Report 2005–06, concluded:
	"it would be preferable to separate the two phases in order that the compulsory phase would have to be introduced by primary legislation. This would enable Parliament to ensure that the legislation fully reflected experience gained, especially about safeguards, during the voluntary phase".
	Again, we agree with that view.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's view, into which I went in some detail in Committee, is that the route to full compulsion—primary or secondary legislation—is to be judged appropriate by one's view on whether or not the initial period is voluntary and whether the House approves of all-out compulsion. At paragraph 20, the committee says that if,
	"one considers . . . this Bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion . . . then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill".
	As we recognised in our previous debates, the Government have repeatedly said that the initial period is voluntary. By agreeing to our Amendment No. 38, this House has ensured that the initial period is what the Government have always said it was—voluntary. We continue to believe that any change from that initial voluntary period to one of all-out compulsion must be made by primary legislation.
	Our problem with the super-affirmative proposal is that, although interesting, it is no solution to the real question. Would that process ensure that the legislation fully reflected the views of both Houses about the experience gained, especially about safeguards? We feel that it would not.
	At Second Reading, I referred to my concerns about the super-affirmative process, in that it would not allow your Lordships' House full powers of amendment and rejection. I referred to the debate in another place on 12 July, when the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mr Burnham, was asked:
	"What happens if one House modifies and the other does not? What procedure is followed thereafter?"
	The Minister responded in this vein:
	"I guess that the procedure would be the same as it is now; the elected House, with primacy, would prevail. I would not want there to be any procedure other than that. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the detail of how the process would work on the Floor of the House, but from my point of view it is clear that the elected House will ultimately determine whether and how the order goes forward".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 216.]
	The noble Baroness dealt with my queries in Committee with her usual great courtesy and tried to persuade me that I need not be too concerned. She gave significant assurances. She said that,
	"my honourable friend was probably referring to the final way in which we would have to implement this if the super-affirmative procedure was not adopted. I think he meant that if both Houses did not agree, ultimately it would be up to the other place to determine the matter by primary legislation".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. GC1070.]
	The difficulty is that the Minister with policy direction of this matter has not taken the opportunity to confirm either to this House or to another place whether what the noble Baroness thinks is what he probably meant is in fact the case. I am aware that Ministers in another place acknowledged in the press during last summer that they knew that there were problems with the super-affirmative process, but we have heard no more of that.
	Whatever the position on that matter—whether we can between us resolve that there is a power of this House both to modify and then reject the super-affirmative process—I would say more. I would say that that is still not the appropriate method by which to move from the so-called voluntary period to one of all-out compulsion. I believe so simply because our discussion of the Bill during six days in Committee and, so far, two days on Report has shown that the information about it is so lacking, the costs so obscure in everything but their massive size, and the details as yet so far from being determined that, even if the scheme were to go ahead on a genuinely voluntary basis, then substantial change would inevitably be needed. That can properly be done only by the mechanism of primary legislation. We believe that Parliament is owed nothing less than that. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, no one seriously doubts that there is a difference in principle between a scheme which is voluntary—even if it is only partly voluntary, as a result of requirements to register if certain steps are taken—and one which makes registration compulsory. There is a world of difference between them. How can it possibly be right to move from a compulsory scheme by the use of secondary legislation, even with the super-affirmative procedure? That is the question.
	If the use of the super-affirmative procedure meant that both Houses had to agree that the time had come when the scheme should become compulsory, I would have thought that the super-affirmative procedure provided a real safeguard. Yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, that is not the case at all. The Government apparently take the view that this House would have no right to reject an order under Section 7 making the scheme compulsory. That is certainly what the Minister said in Committee in the Commons on 12 July at col. 216. He said that the elected House will decide whether the order making cards compulsory will go forward. In other words, the Government are saying that this step of grave principle, making the scheme compulsory, can be taken on the say-so of the Commons without even the safeguard of the Parliament Act to ensure that there was delay while further thought was given to the proposal. It is quite wrong for the state to make a voluntary scheme compulsory without primary legislation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, to clear this up, I confirm that what I said previously about how the super-affirmative procedure would work is correct. If both Houses did not agree, the matter would have to come back by separate primary legislation. So this House would be able to amend and/or alter, as would the other place.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that. I hope that what she says is not later repudiated, because it runs entirely counter to what was said in the other place. In view of what she has said, I hope that we will soon have a statement from the appropriate Minister in the other place that what he said was wrong and that he retracts it. Otherwise, we are still left in the extraordinary position of a categoric statement having been made by the responsible Minister in the Commons and the noble Baroness saying precisely the opposite. That puts us in some difficulty.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Anelay. I start from a simple premise, which is that we have far too much legislation in general and far too much secondary legislation. Much secondary legislation has been ill digested, ill drafted and ill conceived and is highly bureaucratic and burdensome on the people of this country. That something as important as this should be suggested for secondary legislation is, to me, absolutely absurd. Although I personally strongly support the need for a national identity register, I have severe doubts whether the scheme proposed by the Government will work.
	My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was kind enough to refer to the shambles and chaos of the firearms register. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that the new register will be administered by the Passport Agency. I agree with her that the Passport Agency has recently performed rather well, but I remind her that my noble friend Lady Anelay and I visited the Passport Agency about two years ago. We detected a huge shambles in many of its procedures and safeguards. I do not for one moment claim that anything that I said—or even, perhaps, anything that my noble friend said—at our meeting with the heads of the administration of the Passport Agency resulted in its improvement, but I welcome the improvement.
	The identity card scheme as introduced in the Bill may well need significant amendment before we move to a universal, compulsory system. That must mean that there should be primary legislation. If this House has any role at all—and, of course, it does—it is that of detailed scrutiny of the practicality of schemes, legislation and the administration of this country. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, there is a particular reason why compulsion must be introduced under primary legislation. If the order is made rendering registration compulsory, under Clause 6(2), that imposes on every individual an obligation to apply to the registrar. The consequence of making an application to the registrar is that the person must pay a fee—a fee for something that he specifically does not want but that he cannot get out of having. As the noble Baroness, technically correctly, says: "If you feel so strongly about an identity card, you can go without a passport and a driving licence. Then you do not have to have an identity card". But once the scheme is compulsory you have to have one. To my knowledge, for the very first time, a government are saying that every inhabitant of this country is required to have a document which we shall give him and he has to pay for it. To my knowledge, that is unique and wholly objectionable.
	The noble Baroness could say, "If you feel so strongly about it, you could emigrate". But the trouble is that if she has her way I shall not have a passport and I shall not even be able to emigrate. So, finding I cannot emigrate, I suppose my only choice is to go to Beachy Head, jump off and do away with myself—and then, I accept, I shall not need to have one. But that is a somewhat strange definition of voluntary.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I think that he may be wrong. If he does not kill himself, he will find that before getting treatment at the hospital he has to produce his ID card.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, that is all right because then if I do not get treated I shall die and, therefore, I shall not have to have the card.
	Can the Minister give us another example of someone who is compelled to do something, and to pay a fee for something, he did not want? I did not choose to come into this world. If the Government's proposition is right, the only people who should be made to pay for the ID card are my parents, not me.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount has put into place the extraordinary argument advanced by the Minister in our previous debate about what constitutes a voluntary scheme. I thought that to describe the scheme as voluntary simply because there was no obligation for you to apply for a passport, and that you could exclude yourself from the pleasure of going abroad, was a pretty thin argument; but it has been made even thinner by the noble Viscount.
	I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made the point about the previous record of the Passport Office. Yes, it has done quite well recently but initially it made an absolute shambles of things. So I am not sure that I am filled with quite the degree of confidence that I was supposed to be on being told by the ministerial Bench that it was not going to be like the firearms scheme where the Government had to rely on the Home Office incompetence but that they were handing it over to someone else who might do the job better. It says something about the confidence of Ministers now in the Home Office of their ability to run a scheme that they advance such an argument.
	There are two phases of this great project. First, there is what might be called the "You all love it, you all want it, you will all want to have these identity cards and therefore we shall go along with it and we are giving you a great privilege" phase. Then there is the second phase. At some time in the future, the Government will say, "No, it is not a question of what you want but what we want". They will insist that you have it whether or not you like it. We heard from the Minister that the system was being phased in in that way—that they were trying to avoid the big move to compulsion.
	One of the most extraordinary features of the project is the timescale, to which the Minister referred earlier—the initial consultation in, I think, 2002; the announcement in the House in November 2003; and here we are at the start of 2006. Yet even that first phase, debated in the previous amendment, will not be implemented until 2008; and the really compulsory phase, when everyone is brought in, will be quite a long time after that. I cannot remember exactly when, but Ministers have made it clear that there will be quite a long pause before we get there.
	Yet we are told that the whole object of this compulsory scheme is to deal with serious problems afflicting the nation: fraud, crime, illegal immigration and terrorism; so we have to have this great scheme. But it cannot be as urgent as that or we would be introducing it now. I find it extraordinary that, while we are waiting to see how the scheme works and for the reports of the commissioner on how it operates in practice—I hope we will have those reports before we reach the final compulsion stage—we are told, "Oh well, we can rely on the debates held at the introduction of this legislation. We may then be content with the order-making power", enhanced or fallible though it may be in the way that has been hinted at. By then, our experience may be so different from what the Government have indicated at this stage that our knowledge about the effective ways to address the political problems of issues such as fraud and crime may be quite different. We may have changed our view on terrorism by then. Surely we ought to be able to debate these matters in the normal way, thus making sure that the detailed legislation then introduced is correct and able to deal with the situation at the time. It would build on the experience gained during the long period of the scheme's introduction.
	Over the years, surely we have learnt one thing: the devil is in the detail. I remember how the great parliamentarian Tam Dalyell would repeat that saying again and again during our constitutional debates. How right he was to do so. It is as true today as it was then. Just because the timescale is so extended there is an overwhelming case, in addition to that so eloquently described by my noble friend in moving the amendment, for ensuring that we start again and look at the situation as it exists at that point. Parliament should have its normal rights and freedom to carry out the job of seeing legislation through in the appropriate manner.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this amendment is essential. During the early stages of seeing whether the ID card scheme works, we will see examples of petty officialdom acting ultra vires and trying to control movements when they should not do so. Perhaps it will be irritating to have your position vis-à-vis parking fines and other minor infringements checked before you leave the country to go on holiday. That is perfectly feasible and probably sensible, but what if an appeal is pending and it has not been registered properly? What if one evening you are mugged or your pocket is picked and your ID card is lost, but you have to travel shortly afterwards; how will you get another ID card to do so? Those noble Lords who have tried to use their House of Lords ID card to get on an aeroplane to Scotland will know that it is not a sufficient proof of identity.
	Lots of issues may arise. In the light of our experience, we may want to return to primary legislation to introduce stronger safeguards for the ordinary citizen. To trust an executive department of state to introduce those protections is foolhardy. History has taught us that that is unwise.
	We should also remember that all the assurances given to us by the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, while completely honest at the moment, must be taken in the light that no Parliament can bind its successor. After the next general election, Ministers may well change their minds entirely. Indeed, on certain other issues we have seen the same Minister come back to this House with completely different opinions after a general election. None of this is set in stone and therefore it must be set out in primary legislation. Indeed, we may well find by then that local authority entitlement cards and others of that nature are quite sufficient for our purposes, and that we do not need to waste our money. Perhaps we will want to introduce legislation to ensure that they are better used. So many different things could come out of the trial period we are about to enter that merely to move on to the next stage by a super-affirmative order-making procedure is foolish and foolhardy. We must go back to primary legislation in order to move further down this track.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. The Government must be given some credit for the super-affirmative procedure. It is obviously a great deal stronger than normal procedure for a statutory instrument. But I am persuaded that the issues behind this important Bill, both of principle and of practicality, such as the technology, the corruptibility and the cost, all classically make the decision to go to compulsion one that should be taken by primary legislation. I am sure some noble Lords think that is a way of preventing this ever happening, but I do not see it that way.
	There has been a flood of Home Office legislation through this House. At no time in recent years have there not been at least two Home Office Bills going through this place. If at some future time a government are persuaded that it is working and it is not corruptible, it seems relatively straightforward to have two or three sections in a Bill that are compatible with the proposal for compulsion, and we can deal with it then. The other point is that, even with the super-affirmative procedure, you are apt to come on after dinner, and, to be honest, that aborts the prospect of a full House giving full consideration to the matter.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am still unclear about the Government's position on this. Are they saying that if both Houses were not to agree to an order, it would fall and there would have to be primary legislation, or that the normal convention would apply, and it would be a constitutional outrage if we were actually to vote against an order? I suspect it is the latter, and, if so, there is no real safeguard at all in the super-affirmative procedure.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is pointing his gun at me. I am a mere opposition spokesman—not even a spokesman, just a Back-Bencher. As I understood the Minister, she made it quite clear that the latter scenario is not relevant. If both Houses reject on a super-affirmative basis, that's it. Indeed, it would be a nonsense to call it "super" anything if that was not "it", so I am assuming that it is. I am still saying that primary legislation is appropriate for the reasons mentioned, and therefore I support the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it surely must be right, when you are taking the step from voluntarism to compulsion, that there should be primary legislation. Everyone who has spoken so far agrees that should be so. After all, whether or not it is a "super" procedure, in the House of Commons they will probably have three hours at most to discuss the matter. When it comes here we may discuss it for even longer, but the fact is that it will go through on one single occasion. A decision as great as converting the system from voluntary to compulsory will go through both Houses in less than a day. That simply cannot be right. I wonder why the Government will not accept this amendment. It would be in their own interests to do so. It would make them appear less authoritarian and more concerned with individual freedom and the rights of not only this House, but of the House of Commons as well.
	The step to compulsion is, let me emphasise, huge. It converts the decision whether to have an identity card from the individual to the Government. That is a huge step. The Government do not seem to understand what they are doing. The amendment would be good from the Government's point of view because they would convince people that they do believe in individual freedom and that they do believe in proper parliamentary process before large steps are taken. That would be good for the Government; it would help them with the electorate.
	In addition, if the Government accepted the amendment, they would gain time. We will be into the next election and perhaps electing a new government by the time this scheme goes into operation. The Government and the Labour Party would have the opportunity to gain the authority of the people for a compulsory scheme because they could put it in their manifesto. As we know, the Government were very concerned—except in certain cases—to adhere to the manifesto commitment. They could seek the authority of the people for the measure if they put it in a manifesto. That seems a very good argument for the Government to accept this amendment.
	There is another point. The Labour Party—new Labour—may very well want to change its attitude. We should make no mistake about the fact that many people in the Labour Party are very concerned about this legislation and its implications for individual freedom. It is perfectly possible that the Labour Party itself would wish to go back to its roots and defend individual freedom by changing the policy of compulsory identity cards and a compulsory register. So from the point of view of the Labour Party, accepting this amendment would give it the opportunity to further discuss the implications of this legislation. But, above all, such a change deserves proper discussion and proper scrutiny in both Houses before it is made compulsory for the British people. Whether people are in favour of or against the scheme, I believe that virtually everyone, except perhaps the Government and some of their supporters, believes that it should not be made compulsory until there has been a big discussion not only in this House and in the House of Commons but publicly as well.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I suggest that the measure requires rather more than discussion; it requires the consent of the people achieved by reason of a manifesto which sets out that it is to be compulsory. For example, under Clauses 4 and 5, an individual is required compulsorily to attend at a specified place and time to give information about himself and to be registered. That to me has a biblical ring about it. It is like the decree of Caesar Augustus which required Joseph and Mary to take their family from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It could have all sorts of consequences. We might get three wealthy illegal immigrants bringing gifts. Who knows where this will end? But the serious point is that the consent of the people to compulsion must be obtained before this register and the identity card are made compulsory.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, enthusiasm for this amendment must be affected by the importance placed on the liberty of the individual and the reduction of that liberty implied by the scheme's becoming compulsory. The Joint Committee on the Constitution clearly thought not only that the relationship of the citizen to the Government was greatly altered by a compulsory scheme, but that the moment that limitation took place was the point at which the scheme became compulsory. It recommended what this amendment would provide: that there should be primary legislation before the change is made.
	That has been very fully discussed. We have not discussed so much the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that Parliament will need, after the many years of the so-called voluntary scheme, to change various arrangements in the present Bill. Some of it will not work very well; some of it will need to be tweaked in various ways and that will be the opportunity. None of that could happen with a super-affirmative resolution. All that could happen would be a debate and acceptance or rejection. There will be a debate, yes, and then a pause, because it is a super-affirmative resolution, before implementation. Primary legislation will give us a proper opportunity to make any necessary changes. I had not given proper thought to that important point. I am sure that this amendment is of enormous importance and I hope we will accept it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, can I make it clear why the Government absolutely do not accept it? It is because this is primary legislation that we are now debating. This is the Act in which the whole issue of compulsion or no compulsion should be determined. We have had an extensive opportunity to discuss whether this is a matter on which noble Lords and the other place can concur. I have, in answering the last amendment, set out part of the history demonstrating how the Government sought to deal with the question of compulsion. Since 2002 we have said that this issue will be dealt with in two stages.
	The whole point of using the word "initially" was to indicate the two-stage process that we had already put before this House and the other place, first as a draft Bill and then as the Bill that was actively under consideration before the election. We argue strongly that, as far as compulsion is concerned the people of this country have already spoken. They spoke during the election.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I do not understand why the second stage should prevent one learning from experience. One of the advantages of doing it in two stages is that you have the opportunity to learn from experience. Yet what the noble Baroness is proposing is making that, if not impossible, then very difficult.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that it is important to learn from experience. The way in which the Government have set out the two-stage process enables us to do just that. The principle of compulsion would be decided, but the mechanics of how it would be brought in would be amenable to change and sensitive to what we will have learnt between the first and second stages.
	There has been implicit criticism that, in taking time to evolve these proposals, we have not been as speedy as we could, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation. The Government are placed in an interesting situation, in which we are determined to be balanced, proportionate and practical in the way we roll this out. We are determined to get the process right.
	The super-affirmative resolution procedure gives us an opportunity for enhanced flexibility greater than that that we have had hitherto. Noble Lords have complained in the past that one of the disadvantages of the affirmative resolution procedure is that you cannot amend. It is a bit like a curate's egg—one either accepts or rejects. The tradition has been that, if the majority of the content of an order is acceptable, one accepts those things with which one may disagree, because it is better to have the majority of issues as opposed to the few. The super-affirmative procedure, for the first time, would give this House and the other place an interesting opportunity, because it would allow them to have a voice about the detail of the provision proposed.
	That is the whole purpose for the procedure in Clause 7, which deals with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The procedure provides explicitly that the report laid before Parliament must contain all the details of the proposal for compulsion. That proposal can be modified by either House—your Lordships' House or the other place. "Modification" is defined in the Bill as including omission, addition or alteration. Only if both Houses agree on the final report, with or without modification, can the order be made by the Secretary of State, subject to the normal affirmative procedure. That gives the House certainty, in terms of the fact that it is a compulsory scheme; an ability to learn from experience, as the noble and learned Lord indicated; and flexibility on implementation.
	I made it clear on the previous occasion, and sought to do so by my intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was making his remarks in support of the application, that the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as I have more fully now described. The description given by my honourable friend in another place refers to the final position—that if both Houses do not agree, separate and different primary legislation would have to be brought in to implement anything in the order.
	I should correct what I am sure was not an intentional comment on the outcome from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because I think that the noble Baroness has never knowingly misled the House, and I am sure that she did not intend to so do on this occasion. However, it is right for us to look at paragraph 20, to which she referred, in toto, because it clearly describes two different situations. Perhaps I should read it, for completeness. It states:
	"Any assessment of the appropriateness of this delegation of power is dependent on whether one considers this bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion, or a bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage. If the former (i.e. if the House is not at this time willing to endorse the principle of a compulsory scheme for all), then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill. If the latter (which accords with the Minister's invitation at second reading and with the provision in the bill and policy in the memorandum), then the power in clause 6 is the most appropriate method to commence a compulsory scheme. We have taken the latter view, that this bill legislates in principle for a compulsory scheme of identity registration for all; and that the super-affirmative procedure proposed for its introduction is thus the most stringent available secondary legislative mechanism for its scrutiny".
	We have throughout said that the Government's intention is to introduce a compulsory scheme, but in two stages. I hope that I put that beyond doubt when I said at Second Reading on 31 October that,
	"the identity card scheme to be introduced is designed to become compulsory. We therefore need to have the debate on the principle of compulsion now".—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 16.]
	I did not say that it should be debated on another date; I said "now". This is the primary legislation, on which this House and the other place have an opportunity to express their view and say yea or nay; they should not do so on another occasion. The Government's proposals, which command consistent public support, are for a national identity card scheme which will in time become compulsory. I remind your Lordships that the most recent Home Office research shows that around 73 per cent of people support the introduction of identity cards. Indeed, people often ask why we cannot introduce compulsory identity cards straightaway.
	When we move to compulsion, leaving aside any exceptional categories, it will then be compulsory for every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than three months to register, backed up by civil financial penalties for failure to comply. That is the scheme that we are talking about. Through the special super-affirmative procedure set out in Clause 7, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the precise details, but the debate will be about the timing of compulsion and the categories of individuals to be included in the compulsion order, not the principle.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that primary legislation for the second part would give the opportunity to learn from experience. She indicates that the affirmative order procedure would enable a number of changes to be made to the original scheme, but the difference is that the changes proposed by bureaucrats may not be as good or effective as those that Parliament might wish to make. So far as I can understand her description of the procedure, there would not be the equivalent of, as it were, a Committee stage, with detailed changes made to the proposal. If it is the same, why on earth not have primary legislation to do it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hoped that I had addressed fully the noble and learned Lord's points. Having had such an extensive debate on this Bill and debated the issues on principle, we then have an opportunity properly to look at the detail. The super-affirmative resolution procedure allows us to look at that detail and debate the different issues by way of an amendment on each of the matters, so this House and the other place could have the debate on the detail. We argue strongly that that would be the better course.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she mentioned a couple of minutes ago that the Home Office survey had produced a result of 72 per cent in favour. Does she agree that when we discussed the regional government Bill, we were told that 72 per cent of the population supported regional government, but when it came to a vote of the people, they rejected it by a figure of 3.5 or 4 to 1? Did she also hear "Any Questions?" on Friday or Saturday, in which the audience, after hearing the matter debated extensively, voted virtually unanimously against identity cards, compulsory or otherwise?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about that. We can only invite noble Lords to look at the consistent data which we have put before them about the way in which the public have responded. It would be absolutely clear to any of us who remember the previous election that whether we should have ID cards was a plank of a number of the debates between the various parties. We made it clear that we wanted ID cards; noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches made it clear that they did not; and noble Lords opposite had an interesting position.

A noble Lord: Tell us about it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not want to enter the private grief of noble Lords opposite, but it was clear that their position was divided. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head. There was a difference in the positions adopted by her then leader, Michael Howard, and the then spokesman for home affairs about the approach.
	We made it absolutely clear that this was a major issue; the Government put their agenda to the public on the basis of the Bill; and the public spoke. The Government are of the view that this Bill is the primary legislation. It is for this House to decide whether a compulsory scheme is the right way forward. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that, bearing in mind that the Government have adopted the latter construct in paragraph 20 of its report, this would be the best way forward. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the Minister. On the issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, she is right that I do not ever mislead the House, certainly not intentionally. I referred to the full debate in Committee because I thought that it would be rather tedious for those who were not able to be with us at that time to be taken through every argument. What I was able to show there was that, whether the Government believed that the whole Bill provided for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary phase or whether the initial phase was not at all voluntary, I still won both ways in the argument. Paragraph 20 of the report says:
	"Whether one considers this Bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion"—
	which the House has now decided it should be—
	"or a Bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage".
	The noble Baroness said that if it is the latter, that supports the Government. Our argument has been that the Government's definition of "voluntary" is: "if you do not want a new passport, you'll never leave this country and we will make sure of that". That is not voluntary by any definition by people outside this House or, I think, by most people inside it.
	We went through the construct of that paragraph. I have huge respect for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I do not think that I am going to be working against its recommendations in anything that I have argued, either in Committee or today.
	I am grateful to the Minister for putting so clearly on the record her assurances about the way in which she would anticipate the super-affirmative procedure going forward. For whatever reason, that clarity was not provided in the other place. She has provided it today. As ever, her clarity and her reassurances are accepted 100 per cent. However, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out that one government cannot bind the next with such assurances. So, on a matter as significant as the transfer between an alleged voluntary scheme to one of compulsion, is a super-affirmative procedure adequate? For all the reasons adduced by noble Lords today, we believe that it is not; that the move to all-out compulsion is of too great significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, the issues of principle, practicality and cost are the classic decisions that can be taken only after the detailed consideration and reflection that primary legislation allows us. The Minister said that the Government are trying to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach. I believe her, because that is the way in which she approaches her work in this House. It is because of that important need to do exactly as she said and to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to the transition to compulsion that my amendment is necessary. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 198; Not-Contents, 140.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 7 [Procedure for orders under s. 6]:
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Leave out Clause 7.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Issue etc. of ID cards]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 52A:
	Page 7, line 16, leave out "as part of or" and insert "is issued"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52J.
	The amendment alters Clause 8(1)(a), which, as the Explanatory Notes inform us, aims to set out the procedure for issuing ID cards. The amendment removes the ability to make an ID card part of a designated document, thus ensuring that it has to be a separate, self-standing form of identification. The second amendment is consequential to that separation of the ID card from being part of a designated document, and inserts the phrase,
	"and who indicates his wish to have an ID card",
	at the end of subsection (4)(b). This highlights the important point that the choice of having an ID card and what is recorded on it should be the choice of the individual, just as the choice of registration should be voluntary.
	We debated the ins and outs of designated documents when we discussed Clauses 4 and 5. We on these Benches feel that this scheme should be voluntary, as the Government initially wished it to be—as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, indicated. Indeed, she made the point that the card will be a useful form of identification, for example, in accessing public services—although, paradoxically, the Government will not make it compulsory for anyone to carry it.
	Clause 15 sets out the powers to make public services conditional on identity checks. Subsection (1) states that regulations may require a person who provides a public service,
	"to make it a condition of providing the service to an individual that the person produces—(a) an ID card; (b) other evidence of registrable facts about himself; or (c) both".
	By potentially combining the ID card as part of a designated document, not only are you then making what could then be two forms of identification into one—not that we agree limiting what could be used under Clause 15(1)(b)—but importantly, it is yet another method of ensuring compulsion by stealth.
	The example given in the Explanatory Notes describing an ID card as part of a designated document is of a joint,
	"residence permit issued to a foreign national".
	While the notes do not mention other options—indeed, they state that an ID card would be a separate card issued with passports—there is nothing in the Bill to say that it will be joint residence permits only. There is nothing to stop ID cards being made part of all designated documents. The amendment would prevent that possibility from occurring, and thus help maintain a truly voluntary scheme for which so many noble Lords voted in Clause 5. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 52A would prevent an ID card being issued as a combined document with a designated document. We could not proceed with our plans to designate, for example, residence permits, issued to foreign nationals so that they would in themselves be both residence permits and ID cards.
	We have a number of reasons for wishing to do that. First, it is planned in any event to improve the standard of the residence permit, so that instead of being a sticker in the back of a passport it is a separate card with biometric identifiers. As a residence permit is a document that non-EU foreign nationals already need to obtain if seeking to remain in the United Kingdom—as a student, or to work here—it is sensible to designate residence permits. It would in theory be possible to issue a separate ID card along with a residence permit, but that would be unnecessary duplication and much less convenient for the individual than receiving a single card that serves all identification needs.
	Incidentally, there is a precedent for that approach in the rest of Europe. Those EU countries that issue identity cards to their own nationals, such as France or Germany, also issue residence permits as an equivalent form of identity document to foreign nationals resident in those countries. Some have suggested that in future it might make sense to combine a driving licence with an ID card. Again that would not be possible unless we retain the power in the Bill for the designated document itself to become the ID card.
	Amendment No. 52J would require a person to indicate his wish to have an identity card before he or she could be issued with an identity card in accordance with Clause 8(4). I can reassure noble Lords that there is no intention to issue identity cards to people who have not applied for one. They will be issued only to individuals who are either entitled to them, as set out in Clause 2(2), or if not entitled to be issued with one, in the very particular circumstances to be made in regulations under Clause 8(5). That might include people who are not United Kingdom residents, but for whom there might be good reasons to have their details entered on the register and to be issued with an identity card, such as for example, someone living in Ireland who works in Northern Ireland, or someone who lives in France but works in England.
	The key point, however, is that subsection (6) of Clause 8 must be complied with before an identity card can be issued. An application for an identity card will have to be made before an identity card can be issued to an individual. As subsection (4) of Clause 8 must be read in conjunction with subsection (6), there can be no question of issuing an identity card to anyone who does not apply for one. On that basis there is no need to add the wording in Amendment No. 52J to Clause 8(4) as, before being issued with an identity card, the person concerned will already have made an application for one.
	I hope that it is clear from what I have said that, first, we need to retain the power for designated documents to be an ID card, and secondly, that no one who has not made an application in the first instance will be issued with an identity card, in line with Clause 8(6). I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 52A, and not to move Amendment No. 52J.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, that was not an unexpected reply, but a disappointing one nevertheless. I shall consider the matter further before Third Reading, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 52B:
	Page 7, line 21, leave out from "that" to end of line 22 and insert "the individual has consented should be recorded"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52B, I shall also speak to the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 52E.
	The aim of the amendments is to break the link between ID cards and the register. The first amends subsection (2)(a) so that the card will record registrable facts about the individual that he has consented should be recorded, rather than facts that are already part of the entry on the register. Meanwhile, the second amendment is a consequential one to subsection (3)(a), to remove the words, "only the prescribed information" and insert,
	"such of the prescribed information as the individual has consented to be recorded".
	We have already highlighted that it should be the individual's personal choice to decide whether to sign up to the register when applying for a new passport or other designated documents. That naturally follows on from the debate. The wording, as it stands in subsection (1)(a), broadly suggests that all registrable facts that are already recorded as part of an individual's entry in the register could be transferred to the ID card itself. Surely the individual should be able to choose which of the necessary registrable facts are recorded on his card, rather than automatically having all those that are recorded on the register transferred.
	The example that springs to mind is that of addresses. For identification purposes you only have to prove your main abode—usually achieved by taking along a utility bill or a driving licence. As the Minister explained during debates on Clause 1, the Government have made provision, by Amendment No.7, for the address of every other place in the UK or anywhere else he has a place of residence to be registered, covering holiday homes as well as foreign students' accommodation. We welcomed that move, but it means that there may be more than one current address on the register. Surely the individual should be able to choose which one—if there are two in the UK—should be shown on his card, rather than having the potential for both to be shown.
	Similarly, should it not be the individual's choice about which telephone number or e-mail address he wants on the card? Although I have not checked, it occurs to me that the separation of the register and the information recorded on the card could be another method by which the individual's data rights can be protected to some degree. Will the Minister clarify exactly which registrable facts will be transferred to the ID card? Will it be the same for each individual? Who will decide which ones are transferred for each individual? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 52B and 52E would require holders of identity cards to provide consent before information can be recorded on their card. I hope to provide noble Lords with some reassurance about what will be held on the card. Although perhaps well-intentioned, the amendments would undoubtedly hamper the effective operation of an ID card scheme, and would not build the desired public trust in the scheme that noble Lords seek.
	The scenario envisaged introduces a pick-and-choose system for the contents of an ID card, which is unprecedented for official documentation. The information recorded on passports, driving licences, birth certificates, and so on, is largely uniform, and there is no evidence of significant public dissatisfaction with that approach. Similarly, banks and building societies do not ask customers what information they wish to place on the chip of their credit or debit card; nor have they reported that a clamour of people are wishing to find out. The same applies with enquiries on the information held on the machine reader zone on passports. Instead such a system may lead to unintended negative consequences, as the Government have previously stated.
	It is intended that the identity card for British nationals will serve as a travel document that is recognised under International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations for travel within the EEA. In addition, identity cards for foreign nationals are intended to serve as residence permits. In order to fulfil those roles, the identity card will be designed to meet international standards that govern the format and information to be held on these documents. However, if the amendments were passed, there would be no guarantee that all the cards would meet those standards, creating confusion when handling those documents at key points, such as border controls.
	Such lack of uniformity among the identity cards may also lead to problems. It would not only be operationally difficult to manage and drive up costs, it may also undermine trust in the scheme and create problems for the cardholder. Again, there would be confusion between the hundreds of variations of identity cards in circulation. User organisations and other individuals may also wonder why a person has chosen to include one field and exclude another, leading to unnecessary questions.
	I reassure noble Lords that I appreciate their interest and concern about what information will be on the card. I assure them that the Government have no intention of placing any unusual or surprising information on the card. As we stated in Committee, we will not be placing any personal information on the chip that the cardholder does not already know about. Indeed, the Secretary of State does not have the power to place information on the card at will. Instead, Parliament must approve the information to be recorded on the card, as laid down in regulations subject to affirmative procedure.
	In practice, the information held on the identity card for British nationals is not anticipated to vary much from the information found on a passport. In addition, it is currently anticipated that the format of the card and the contents of the chip will be explained in information materials made available to each cardholder, and an individual would be free to make a data subject access request under the Data Protection Act if they wished to make a further check. There will be, as the Government have stated, no address or telephone number held on the face of the card. If verification of address is necessary, it can be done against the register. What appears on the card will be set out in affirmative regulations.
	The noble Baroness sees her amendment as benign, but her desire to break the link between the card and register, if these amendments were agreed to, would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the scheme. I do not think that is entirely what the noble Baroness wants; I hope it is not. Noble Lords on the main opposition Benches have said that ultimately they believe in a voluntary scheme, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would want that scheme to be effective. We happen to believe that the scheme can only be effective if it is ultimately compulsory, universal and uniform in its main aspects. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister has raised some important points on residents and foreign nationals. I wish to study Hansard carefully; it may not be necessary to bring back the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 52C:
	Page 7, line 23, leave out from "facilitating" to end of line 26 and insert "the self-identification of the individual by means of reference to registrable facts"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the amendment simplifies the drafting and the purpose of Clause 8(2)(b). As previously discussed, the subsection specifies the use of an ID card. The amendment does exactly what it says; it removes all the words after "facilitating" to the end of the paragraph, and replaces them so that the text would read:
	"Carrying data enabling the card to be used for facilitating the self-identification of the individual by means of reference to registrable facts".
	That replacement text enables the card to be used for the verification of registrable facts and thus the verification of an individual's identity, but no further. In short, it limits the card to the purpose of identification only. After all, is that not the basic premise of the Government's argument? They want people to be able to prove that they are who they say they are via the use of the ID card: for the use of public services; in the interests of national security; for the prevention or detection of crime; and the enforcement of immigration and prohibitions on illegal working. It will not allow those providing public services to access information recorded in the register that is not on the card. Indeed, is there a need for access to information other than proof of ID? Those who justify the need for access to other data on the register could do so under an application to the Secretary of State as set out in Clause 14(1). I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I would like to support the amendment wholeheartedly, but unless I have misunderstood it, it is a bit of an Exocet under the water line of one major part of this Bill, which is the provision of a whole lot of other data to a whole lot of other people, unrelated to mere identification. I would love to think that at this late stage of the Bill we could bring it back to identification purposes and away from the larger information purposes, but I shall look forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says with anticipation and a certain confidence.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 8(2)(b) includes in the definition of an ID card that data should be included on the card which will enable it to support a number of possible verification services considered for the identity card scheme.
	I appreciate that Clause 8(2)(b) may appear long-winded, particularly in contrast to the short, sharper wording of Amendment No. 52C. However, I assure noble Lords that Clause 8(2)(b) is necessarily drafted in the way that it is, to accurately describe what is an ID card for the purpose of the Act. The definition does not of course confer any powers to provide information; those are set out in Clauses 14, 17 and 19 to 23. Subsection (2)(b) accurately reflects those powers. Amending the clause in the way proposed would not affect those powers. Nevertheless, we believe it is better that the definition of an ID card should reflect more closely what it is actually intended to do. As the Government have said previously, it is intended that the identity card scheme will offer a number of different types of verification services, from an electronic card validity check to a biometric verification, which may be used for a particular transaction depending on the level of risk and value involved.
	Amendment No. 52C would limit the definition so that it only referred to allowing the citizen to identify himself by means of reference to the registrable facts held on the register. It will not always be the case that it is the registrable facts that are verified. For example, an electronic card validity check, PIN verification and a number of different options for remote authentication—which would be aimed at reducing online fraud, for example—may not be covered. Such checks may depend on the data held on the card enabling a check of information on the register that is not a registrable fact but is held on the register. For example, that might be technical information or information held in paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 1; that is whether a card is in force or not and different types of security information. That would then provide a confirmation message in return to the user organisation. Systems using methods such as PIN verification are an established part of life today and are evolving. I cannot imagine that noble Lords intend for their use to be closed off as a possible option for the identity card scheme.
	I hope that provides some explanation about why Clause 8(2)(b) is drafted as it is, and I suggest that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that useful response and clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Selsdon: moved Amendment No. 52D:
	Page 7, line 26, at end insert—
	"(2A) Only one ID card may be held by any individual at any one time.
	(2B) Any ID card issued to any individual shall be accompanied by a written statement of all the information held on the ID card.
	(2C) Each individual in respect of whom an entry on the Register has been made shall be provided with a written copy of all the information held on the Register relating to him."

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I rise with something of a heavy heart. This amendment started its life as a simple apostrophe. I had intended to try to find out whether the Short Title of the Bill was correct. I may feel moved to move an amendment to the Short Title to change it from "Identity Cards Bill" to "Identity Register Bill". In the meantime, in seeking as ever to be brief, I looked at whether an apostrophe might effectively be the best way of drafting this amendment. I wanted to know what would happen if I put an apostrophe in "Cards", either before or after the "s". I sat upstairs with some eminent people in the Public Bills Office, who said that apostrophes were not acceptable, meaning that they are not acceptable for things. We looked at all the Bill titles with apostrophes, and they had to do with people. For example, if I introduced a Bill called "Lord Bassam's Benefits of Brighton and Hove Albion Bill", there could be an apostrophe after "Bassam". It was not otherwise possible, they told me.
	While I was there, a noble Lord who I shall not mention came in. I asked whether he was good on English, and he said that he had just become president of the English Speaking Union and felt that he might consult. My question was whether, in "Identity Cards", we are talking of one card or lots of cards. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will answer this later. When she talked about super-affirmative, I thought that she might be speaking as a form of Mary Poppins: "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Or was she some wicked witch in Hansel and Gretel, or something else? She charmingly fails to tell the whole truth, possibly because she does not know it.
	My question is simple. If we ask people whether they would benefit from the right to have an identity card, I am sure that more than 72 per cent would say so. If we ask them whether they want this information on a central registry, 72 per cent would probably say no. The right solution is somewhere between the registry and the benefit of the card. If we have a central register and it provides information from which identity cards are produced, does that mean that each identity card is identical, or does it mean that there is a different identity card for different purposes, as associated with the appropriate document?
	For example, on what I call a national identity card—the biometric card that goes with a passport—there will be certain standard information. Surely that card will not contain all the data about a particular individual from the register but only the same data as is contained on other people's passports. That is an important issue, because if by any chance there is additional data from the register on those cards which is not standard to other people, the sensitivity of the reader is such that other countries may well be able to lift that data. That would not be in our national interests.
	How many different types of identity cards will there be? I regard the standard identity card as the one that goes with the biometric passport, which will have certain defined data and is still a voluntary card. It is a card that people may well want.
	I should like to correct the remarks of the noble Baroness from the last time I intervened, when she said that I had said that all passports should be issued free. I did not. I said that as the bulk of people who did not have passports were over the age of retirement, it might be a nice gesture—they might not want to travel—if, as they reach a certain mature age, they could have one, or a card, that would be free. Might there not be an identity card, if it is not the one linked to the passport, that has on it your age, entitlement to a pension, or things of that sort? There may be another one associated with your driving licence or, one day, a gun licence. This is where I find it hard to understand where we are coming from or going to.
	The amendment should really only have been introducing an apostrophe, and I gather that, if we were all agreed, it could have one. I think it should be called the "Identity Card's Bill". If, however, it is to be the "Identity Cards' Bill", will the noble Baroness tell me where the apostrophe should go?
	In the supplementary part of the amendment, I have suggested that anyone who receives an identity card should when he receives it get a nice friendly letter from the Minister responsible, with her email address and direct telephone number, advising them that she is proud enough to have received a gold card or whatever it might be which offers certain privileges, such as the ability to identify yourself in particular situations, and would contain given information. As I asked the noble Baroness the other day, what documentation issued by which government department is proof of identity for which purposes? She sent me a fairly unclear reply, because the matter is not clear. It would therefore be nice if—if we are issuing these identity cards—we removed all these other pieces of paper as proof of identity. That would provide the voluntary encouragement to have one.
	Almost daily we receive direct mail offering us all sorts of Switch cards and other cards setting out what information is on that card. Would it not be polite, proper and gentlemanly to write a letter telling the individual what is on the central register, thereby building a relationship where people would have the right to ask whether something might be removed unless it were absolutely essential—such as the wrong address or a little slip made by a computer operator or typist which changes the postcode by one digit? That can have a major impact on someone's life.
	My position is unchanged. I believe that the ultimate proof of identity is an individual's passport. The introduction of a simple identity card linked to that passport, with all the biometric data on it, is the right way to go. I suggest that that is the only way to go. The second stage—when various government departments feel that it would be helpful to everybody—would be to have an identity card that may be associated with your driving licence and may automatically write to you when you reach the age of 70, requiring you to have a new eye test. Perhaps it could be recorded on it the number of times you have been caught by a speeding camera or all that other data. People would not mind if they knew. If that driving licence/identity card was acceptable, it would be perfect.
	On human relations, we should give people the right to approve their photograph on these cards. There may be a different photograph on each. We should also give them the right to add any of the identifying marks that have historically been associated with passports.
	This is not a frivolous amendment; it is simply a request for a simple answer. What is the maximum number of different identity cards that we think we will be issuing, and for what purposes? I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he make one point perfectly clear? Subsection (2B) of his amendment is clear that the statement of information is to be given to the citizen at the time the card is issued. I am not perfectly clear when the information in subsection (2C) is to be given to the citizen. Is it every time that a new entry goes on the register?

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is very wise, and he should understand that I am not very clear either. But I went upstairs and got help in drafting the provision from the Public Bill Office. I did not think that it was right to suggest that the statement of information should be given every time. I just thought that in the beginning, when the card is issued, the recipient should know what is on the card and in the central register so that he or she could determine the difference between the data.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selsdon made one point in particular which interested me very much. He suggested that when people get their card, they should have the contents of the card in writing so that they would know exactly what was on it. That seems essential to me.
	Somewhere in the Bill it says that what is in the register will be available to people, that they will know what is in the register under their name. When you get a card, you will immediately want to know what it says to people when put into a slot. Will that be available? I think that that is an important point and would give people confidence in the card.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon explained, the aim of the amendment is not only to ensure, quite sensibly, that only one ID card may be held by any individual at any one time—an aspect I hope to develop in the next amendment—but also that the individual about whom there is an entry on the register is effectively provided with a hard copy, in writing, of all the information held on it relating to him. The question is whether the Government intend to issue an individual with more than one card. At the same time, it highlights a situation that could aid and abet criminals hoping to use the cards or to create additional ones, so stealing an individual's identity.
	It seems eminently sensible that one should have a written copy of the information stored about one, where any mistakes can be picked up quickly and efficiently by the individual concerned and the national identity register then alerted to the changes that need to be made. More importantly, this could happen before the individual is charged for having incorrect information on his or her record. Not only will it help maintain a check on the accuracy of data and be a preventive measure against fines, but it will also show willing in terms of allowing people access to their own data as per the Data Protection Act and privacy laws. I await with interest a reply from the Minister.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I personally thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for clarifying that I had misunderstood him in relation to the free passports. I had thought that, in answering the other amendment, the noble Lord was suggesting that all stand-alone cards would be free. I now understand what he was saying.
	I hope that the noble Lord will remember that, when we were debating this before, I tried to make clear that it would be possible, in due course, for us to look at whether there may be a category of persons who would not need to register, because of either their age or level of infirmity. However, I very much took on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who asserted that many people, notwithstanding their age, might wish to have this right and/or other provisions reducing the amount of money that we may seek to levy on them.
	I am sure that the noble Lord would not like the apostrophe either to be after the "s" or between the "d" and the "s", because, as he knows, that would be appallingly bad grammar. It would suggest that the Bill belonged to either one or to many identity cards. I know that the noble Lord, with his normal attention to detail, would not wish that.
	Perhaps it is not therefore surprising that the Public Bill Office was reluctant to agree to that, but I know that the noble Lord has a serious point about how many cards we are contemplating. I assure him that it is not our intention that individuals could normally hold more than one card. Indeed, while a person may record in his register entry details of another name he is known by, it will not be possible to have a card in each name.
	However, there are a few exceptions: a person under a witness protection scheme who needs to be provided with a second identity, or a very small number of transgender individuals who are in the transition stage of living in their birth and acquired identities. It is planned, subject to certain checks, to provide such individuals with an opportunity to have two cards in order to take account of their needs and to comply with the spirit of recent gender-recognition legislation. Of course, where two cards are issued in such a circumstance, that fact will be recorded in the technical data for the entry. While this is not to be revealed during a normal day-to-day transaction, the information will be available to prevent misuse. Only one card would ever be valid for travel.
	Looking at the number of cards possible, just so that we have it absolutely clear, there will be: an identity card for British citizens, issued alongside the British passport and also valid as a travel document; a stand-alone identity card, issued to British citizens who do not hold a passport, and valid for travel in Europe; a plain ID card, not valid for travel and available to British or Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom; and ID cards linked to residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals. Those are the cards that we anticipate being made available.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister said something rather interesting then. She talked of, I think, a plain identity card which does not give you the right to travel in Europe. This is news to some of us. In what circumstances will that be issued and will that ID card carry all the full shenanigans—all the Schedule 1 stuff—in terms of register entries?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in Committee we ran through the different stages. The noble Lord will know that there will be those who already have an identity card or document from another country, who are here and wish to have a card for the purposes of identity, but who do not have a British citizen's right to travel; therefore, they would have a plain ID card. They would be linked to residence permits. A plain ID card would not be valid for travel, but would be available for British or Irish citizens resident in the UK—so, for those who have not complied with the travel arrangements. That is how it would work.
	An issue was raised in relation to the taking of the photograph for the card. I hope that many noble Lords had the advantage of seeing the trial we had here in the House, and would know that it is very easy to change the photograph until it is something that one admires a little more than one sometimes does the average photograph available. That can be dealt with and done easily indeed.
	If there is a dispute about the accuracy of the information on the register—the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—the normal procedure would be for the individual concerned to inform the Secretary of State of the error. If the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, the data subject has the right to apply for rectification through the civil courts under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act. Inaccuracies or refusal to correct information would also of course be matters that the national identity scheme commissioner would want to investigate and could report to the Secretary of State. All the commissioner's reports must be laid before Parliament. Finally, the powers of the Information Commissioner, including, should it be necessary, the power to issue enforcement notices, will apply to this database just as they do to the government databases.
	To recap, the first part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, would prevent us issuing two cards where it is in the interests of national security or the protection of vulnerable minorities. I know that that is not what the noble Lord wanted—he wanted me to put on the record how many one would normally have. I hope that I have done that. Although I emphasise that two cards would be held only in very special circumstances, they are important circumstances, thus the provision, although well intended, would perhaps be undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
	The second part of the amendment provides that any identity card should be accompanied by a written statement regarding what is held on the register. I understand the reason the noble Lord invites us to comment on that. I can assure him that the Government have no plans to place on the card's chip any information that the person will not be aware of. The contents of the card and the chip are being designed to comply with relevant international standards. It is intended that it will simply contain the information on the face of the card, technical information regarding the functioning of the card itself, a facial image and two fingerprints. That will be clear. The noble Lord is quite right that, just as we prepare documentation for the current passport, we will make available to those applicants information explaining the nature of the application, the consequences of it and how it works. The same sort of approach will be taken in relation to preparation of these matters. Indeed, we will have the interviews so that people will be able to get a very clear explanation there as well.
	It is our full intention, therefore, to make cardholders aware of the kind of information that will be held on the chip and the card through the usual type of information that I have just indicated. Furthermore, I hope noble Lords will recall that the information that may be held on the card will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So we will be able to have a look at those and make sure that they are as full as we would like.
	The third part of the amendment seeks to provide that each individual in respect of whom an entry has been made should be sent a written copy of the information relating to him. We respectfully suggest that it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to add specific provisions to the Bill in this way. It is important to appreciate that even verification of information on the register would be caught by this amendment, as technically any verification would count as an entry on the register, upon which notification provided to the individual would need to be present. I know that the noble Lord wanted the amendment to apply only to the first registration, so I hope I have explained that.
	I hope I have been able to provide some assurance. In many cases, an entry will have been made at an individual's own request, so they will be aware of the contents. The Data Protection Act already lays down general rules that I have tried to explain. We intend that an individual should be able to check current information about himself free of charge via a web portal. That would include information regarding verification requests made in the previous six or 12 months. A full subject access request will be subject to a reasonable fee as provided for in the Data Protection Act, which is currently £10. Thus, those wishing extra clarification are catered for.
	I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with these clarifications. I thank him for his usual care. The debate has enabled us to give some fairly important reassurances as regards the arguments on the Bill, which I think may be very helpful for those who construe this Bill subsequently.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, did I understand her to say that a citizen will get a card which does not indicate externally what is actually on the chip, and that they will not receive a bit of paper accompanying the card indicating what is on the chip? They will not, therefore, know the contents of the card that they have to hand over from time to time. Is that the case? That seems a terrible mistake to me. Quite apart from what is on the register, and the arrangements about that which she has reiterated, what is actually on the card will be of great concern to people. That is what they will have, and they will want to know what they are handing over on request to the health service or whoever, depending on what they are using it for.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the individual will know the information on the card. That, as I have described, will be explained in the material which will accompany the application. It will be explained during the meeting. I also tried to draw a distinction between the different types of cards that will be available. There will be the standard identity card for British citizens issued alongside a British passport. That will have on its face certain clear information about the identity of the person et cetera. It will be very clear that this is the travel document. There will then be a stand-alone identity card for those who do not want a passport but who want to travel within Europe on their ID card. Then there will be the plain card, which will not be valid for travel. You will clearly be able to differentiate one from the other. Then there are ID cards which are linked to residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals.
	I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that it will be very clear to the holders of the card the sort of information that will be contained on it and the use to which it should properly be put.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, again before the noble Baroness sits down, I took the concern of the noble Baroness to relate to checking that what is on the card is what should be on it. I think the noble Baroness was saying, "We will tell you what should be on the card".
	The other thing that made my ear prick up was that the noble Baroness said that there will be a portal through which one can gain access to the actual contents of one's card for, I think she said, a period of six or nine months. Thereafter, one would be able to go through the Data Protection Act, but have to pay a fee of £10. If so, that seems to me to be a heavy imposition on many people I can think of, particularly if we ever get to the point of having a compulsory card. Will the Government think a little more about this and give a little more guidance, because I do not think that many people are expecting to have to pay £10 in order to access information made available a year or so back?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sorry if I am not as clear as I believe I am being. The chip will only contain what appears on the face of the card—when you get the card, the information will appear on the face—and then the technical and biometric information. The categories of information to be held on the chip will be set out in regulations. So it will be very clear what information the card contains—there it will be on the face of the card. One should be able to look at it and, with the naked eye, determine what information is covered.
	On the ability to access and check the current information, a web portal will be available. It will be kept up-to-date and will include information regarding verification requests made in the previous six to 12 months. So, if you wanted to monitor on a continuous basis, every six months you would go in and look to see what is on there, and you would be able to do so free of charge. If you wanted further or other information for some reason, you can use the formal procedure, which will be available under the DPA. You can pay £10 and get the whole screed of information that you want. The £10 is seen at the moment as a reasonable fee to pay in relation to the Data Protection Act. I do not think that it would be unreasonable to expect the same procedures to be adopted. Those who have the advantage of a computer could do it on a daily basis, if they so wished.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. When she said "reassure", I would take out the two letters "re". She assured me some time ago that there would be one identity card. Now I have a feeling that there will be several identity cards. They may all look the same, but they will have different information on them and be used for different purposes.
	In preparation for this, I took the liberty of consulting most of the EEA states about their current attitudes to identity cards. The noble Baroness will know that in some countries you no longer have to carry your residence card; in others you have different regulations. At the moment, the Germans are much exercised about biometric data on their new biometric cards and, particularly, the Greens and others feel that this is a complete invasion of privacy. But there is no standard throughout Europe.
	This is only a probing amendment, but perhaps the noble Baroness might prepare a schedule indicating her argument that there will be different types of cards for different purposes. There will be a card for people who do not travel and perhaps driving information will be contained on a card. I do not know. I would actually like to have a card containing all my information.
	I would like to explain how difficult it is for some of us who have to wander a bit when we often need our birth certificates. I would like my birth certificate data and marriage data on a card. There could be all sorts of exciting things. I have mentioned before that when I have had to prove my identity in some countries, passports having disappeared, it would have been no bad idea to have had tattoos. It may all be fairly easy in this country, since in general we have reasonable officials. We are therefore one of the few countries in the world where an identity card is not really necessary.
	I hope that, before we conclude, the Minister might write me a simple letter saying that as we introduce these cards we will eliminate other pieces of paper as proof of identity. Back in my banking days, when introducing a new card we would try to sell it to people. The Government have not made a very good job of selling the card. It could be beneficial; it might even be of use in embassies abroad when someone runs out of money and the embassy cannot help. There are plenty of benefits and side benefits; if it is going to cost money and save the Government money, we should really sell it to the people.
	Somebody made a slight mistake earlier by referring to manifestos. I believe that those of us who are in this House by default, or for whatever reason, have a duty to represent all the people. Although I have never had the right to vote, I have made a personal wish to represent the 19 million people who did not vote in the last election, and the 13 million British subjects who live abroad. That is a powerful majority who have not yet had their say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 52E not moved.]

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 52F:
	Page 7, line 30, leave out "prescribed period" and insert "life of the individual"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this amendment alters Clause 8(3)(c) to ensure that a card issued to an individual is only valid for the duration of the individual's life, and not for a prescribed period which could stretch beyond that. I hope to probe the Minister with a series of questions which will provide the House with more information.
	What does the Minister anticipate the prescribed period to be? If there is to be a renewal of cards, and the scheme is made compulsory, will the state pay for the cost of each renewal? Will those renewals differ for each individual, and how will renewal take place? To prevent the interception of post by criminals, I assume that it would require a face-to-face meeting on each occasion—once again, taking up time and effort in people's busy lives.
	If the intention is that the period should last longer than the individual, can the Government state why? I see no benefit from maintaining cards beyond the life of their owner. Whose responsibility will it be to inform the registrar and ID authorities that someone has died? Will they have workers trawling the obits, or will the family have to perform that administrative task in their state of grief? If so, will there be a set period within which it must be performed, and what will happen in the case of a missing person? Will he or she remain on the register for the seven years until they can, I understand, be declared legally dead?
	We on the Conservative Benches advocate the eradication of entries from the register, as well as the destruction of cards, as soon as an individual ceases to need them in person. Will the register be wiped clean of a person's records once he has died? Will there be a retraction and destruction processes which collect the cards of the deceased or will it rely on other family members shredding them, as we do with credit cards? I wonder whether, in years to come, people will keep ID cards as family heirlooms, locking them in time capsules for future generations to find. So, this aspect raises many questions which I hope the Minister can answer. I beg to move.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hesitate to rise again, but my noble friend has raised some ancillary issues which come up where a particular card might help. Not least, there are the backpackers and the young who, when travelling around the world on their own, may not have the same responsibility as the older generation. Undoubtedly, it would be beneficial if any card that they were carrying had additional information on next of kin, and perhaps other identifying marks of some importance.
	However, when we look at how information changes and for how long cards should exist, we must look at all the changes that take place in people's lives such as the changes in name. My noble friend makes quite an important point. Can the Government answer it?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, surely the card cannot be valid beyond the life of the cardholder. There is no identity to validate once you've popped it. However, nothing about the Bill would surprise me.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a feeling that we dealt in Committee with much of the detail to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred. If I miss something, I shall be more than happy to drop a note to those noble Lords who have participated in this mini-debate. The amendment would make the identity card valid for the life of the cardholder, rather than for a period to be decided by Parliament through regulation. I understand that it is designed to draw out more information from us, and we will do our best to answer the points in due course.
	It is currently intended that the identity card for a British national will be valid for 10 years, in line with the validity period for passports issued by the UK Passport Service. Generally, we take the view that to alter that to a lifelong validity would be impractical and undermine or damage the intended operation of the scheme. A person's characteristics do not stay static; they change over time. It is important that document issuers ensure that information relating to a person remains accurate and can be verified periodically. The practice of issuing documents such as passports with a time-limited validity period reflects that; so should the issuing of the identity card.
	The advent of biometrics, which may naturally change over a person's life, underlines the need for a limited validity card so that biometrics can be recorded to ensure the continuing accuracy of biometric verification. Additionally, identity cards for foreign nationals are intended also to serve as residence permits. So, a lifelong validity period, as sought in the amendment, would not be appropriate in our view. The card's validity should cease once the individual's leave to remain in the United Kingdom runs out.
	The identity card programme has been through, and completed, an extensive market sounding and card durability survey with leading international card and chip manufacturers. The manufacturers confirmed that a card life of 10 years is viable and provided evidence where they have guaranteed that card life. Studies by the Communication Electronics Security Group have also demonstrated that the durability of card security features remains over a 10-year period.
	As for death and ID cards, there is no requirement on a person who has died to notify their own death or, indeed, for his next of kin to notify the Secretary of State of it. I recall making that point at an earlier stage. The register will retain data on deceased people, primarily to prevent fraudulent use of a dead person's identity. We discussed, at an earlier stage, times when that has been the case in some celebrated past acts of criminality. There is no need for an ID card to survive its holder. It will be cancelled, and the Secretary of State has power to require its surrender under Clause 13.
	On the point about keeping things as family heirlooms, we often keep things from our past. I recently came across the papers from a deceased relative from the last world war, which included some rather sad pieces of paper and some interesting documents. I know that my mother kept her identity card from the war period. People are free to do that, but there is no obligation on people to keep documents for longer than they are required.
	As for time capsules, under Clause 13(3), it would be possible for the next of kin of an ID card holder who had died to seek the permission of the Secretary of State for them to retain the cancelled card, as now happens with passports.
	Another couple of points may have been raised that I have not covered relating to paying for renewal. In most of the circumstances anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, it would be expected that a payment would be made for renewal. It would depend very much on what had happened—whether the card had been lost or stolen or whatever—whether the replacement card had to be paid for by a small charge. We intend to make it as easy as possible for people to replace lost or stolen documentation. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have a question that takes us back to the life of cards. Your old passport was sent back to you with the corner cut off. I have kept all of mine; I still have my identity card from the war on which, when I have not been able to get a second passport, I have managed to travel. The Minister talks about 10 years of life. In general, British bank cards last for three years; French ones for two years; German ones for two. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that a card that fulfils a useful function could have a life as long as 10 years. That is a doubtful statement.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I respect the point made by the noble Lord. When we were preparing for the Bill and this issue came up by way of general discussion, I would have agreed with him, but robust testing and reputable scientific research from biometric experts underpin the assumption that the re-recording of biometrics every 10 years is sufficient for the identity card scheme.
	We are happy with the science behind the scheme. We think that it will be sufficiently robust to work for that period. Studies conducted by the Communication and Electronics Study Group has clearly demonstrated that the card will be durable. That durability will cover the card's security features during that period.
	However, we are in a fast-moving field of information science and technology. We must respect the advice that we have been given. There is no doubt that things have changed since we began to use such pieces of plastic, when the bank recalled them after two or three years. I remember that one of my bank cards lasted for about five or six years and I was very impressed by that and thought that I was getting quite a good service.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the card is combustible, so that I can be cremated with my identity card?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is very tempting that the noble Lord suggests that he might be combustible, but what he chooses to do with his identity card on his demise is entirely up to him.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I believe that the debate in Committee was on the register; we did not probe the validity of the card then. However, we have had some clarification from the Minister, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 52G:
	Page 7, line 31, leave out "issuing it" and insert "to whom it is issued"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the amendment would replace the wording in subsection (3)(d) so that the text would read: "An ID card issued to an individual . . . remains the property of the person to whom it is issued".
	The reasoning behind the amendment is twofold. First, it is to probe exactly to whom the Bill refers. Will it mean the Secretary of State or the head of the designated document authority, which may vary depending on which document it is—for passports, the passport office; for drivers licences, the DVLA; and so on? Secondly, and more importantly, it is to safeguard against the withdrawal of a card by the state. As ever, the role of this House is to scrutinise legislation to uphold the British constitution.
	Legislation such as this raises difficult questions of civil liberties versus national security. However, we must always remember that what we put in place now will be used by future governments. There is never a guarantee that a different government will use the powers in the way envisaged today or that we are assured that they will be used today. Making the card the property of the individual whose data it contains will help protect against future misuse by an unscrupulous state apparatus, should it occur. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment would remove the provision that ID cards such as passports remain the property of the issuer, which will normally be the Secretary of State. It would replace it with a statement that the card was the property of the person to whom it was issued.
	Our view is clear. It would be completely unprecedented for a document of this nature to be issued in those terms. A good analogy is a passport, which is endorsed:
	"This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and may be withdrawn at any time".
	If the cards were to be the property of the user, that would seriously undermine confidence in the reliability of the scheme both in this country and in the rest of the European Union. It would also contravene standard practice across the world for travel documents. The issuing of ID cards and the maintenance of the integrity of the system as a whole is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, so it is entirely appropriate that the cards remain the property of the Government.
	The noble Baroness said that she felt that the cards being the property of the persons to whom they were issued would be a check on potential criminality. We could argue the contrary. If they were to be the property of the person to whom they were issued, it would be very difficult to have its sale or transfer to another person blocked. The product would be that much more easily transferable and knowledge of it and what was on it would be that much more difficult to obtain. So, for safety and security reasons—if for no other—it would be much wiser for it to remain the property of the government of the United Kingdom, as is the case with passports.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 52H:
	Page 7, line 33, leave out "or is subject to compulsory registration"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 52J not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 7, line 41, leave out "relating to an individual" and insert "issued under this section"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I moved an amendment in Committee to make clear that the issue of cards under Clause 8(5) could be done only with the consent of the person to whom the card was to be issued. Amendments were moved today by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, broadly along that line.
	In discussions with the ever-helpful Bill team, I was told that Clause 8(6) applies to the whole of Clause 8 and makes clear that no card can be issued under Clause 8(5) or (4) which is not consensual—that it does not proceed other than on an application made to the register by the individual concerned. My amendment is designed to make that express and explicit. It does not change the sense of the clause; that is not intended. I have removed the superfluous words "relating to an individual"—an ID card can relate only to an individual—and inserted "issued under this section". Therefore, Clause 8(6) would state:
	"An ID card issued under this section is not to be issued except on an application",
	and so on.
	I hope that the amendment is uncontentious and will make clear what is currently less clear. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that the noble Lord's understanding of the operation of Clause 8 (6) is correct. It is not to be read in isolation. I can state categorically that subsection (6) applies to the other subsections including subsection (5). Therefore the identify card mentioned in Clause 8(5) is the same ID card mentioned in Clause 8(6) and (1). Clause 8(5) has to be read in conjunction with Clause 8(6). It cannot be read in isolation.
	It is important to state that it operates in relation to all parts of that clause. I understand why the noble Lord moved his amendment. However, it casts doubt on other areas of the Bill. If Clause 8(6) reiterated in effect that it must be read in conjunction with other subsections, that may cast doubt on whether this is the case with other clauses which do not contain such a provision.
	Clause 8(5) is intended for those who have not yet been resident in the UK for the prescribed period but who wish to apply for a card immediately for their own convenience. Another example could be an Irish citizen residing in Dublin but who makes frequent journeys to the UK and would find an ID card a useful method for proving his identity while he is here. However, all individuals would have to make an application for the card and to be entered on to the register. The Secretary of State could not use this subsection as a way of bringing in compulsion through the back door. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, that we can leave the structure of the clause as it is, and that it will have the effect he desires. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall read carefully. At first hearing, it seemed to satisfy my desire—except in one respect. I always come back to this question. For the poor people who have to do so hereafter, how easy will it be to construe the Bill? I thought it would be helpful to clarify in the manner indicated. I understand the noble Baroness to say that that would have potential interpretative repercussions elsewhere. One must have close regard to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 8, line 3, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to at length and we have had a vote on it. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 54A:
	Page 8, line 6, leave out from "document" to end of line 8.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 54B:
	Page 8, leave out lines 14 to 16.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this is a short and simple amendment which removes lines 14 to 16 of subsection (8) of Clause 8. This is to probe why the Government feel that these particular words are needed on the face of the Bill when it already appears to me to be covered by paragraph (b) which states that applications may be made by the Secretary of State or, in prescribed cases, to a designated documents authority. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment seeks to remove the clarification that the Secretary of State may delegate to a designated documents authority the power to issue a stand-alone ID card. At present we have no plans for anyone but the Secretary of State to issue stand-alone cards—that is, through the new agency to be based, as we have explained many times, around the United Kingdom Passport Agency. However, we would not wish to rule out the possibility altogether. If the designated documents authority were to be fully set up to issue ID cards it would be an unnecessary restriction if a person wishing to apply for a stand-alone card were unable to do so to the authority most convenient for him. It is simply for that reason that we have retained this provision. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 8, line 20, at end insert "or
	( ) the registrable facts which are to be relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 9 [ID cards for those compulsorily registered]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 55A:
	Page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) verifying information required for the re-issue of a card after it has been cancelled in accordance with section 13(2)(a) to (d)"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56A and 59E. Clause 9 provides for the renewal of cards for those individuals who are required by Clause 6 to be entered into the register. The Bill now has no Clause 6 but the Government may not be persuaded that we are right: they may seek to reinsert the clause. Therefore, in the remote possibility that Clause 6 appears again, this amendment asks questions about the interaction.
	The Explanatory Notes tell us that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the power to require an individual applying for an ID card under this clause to do certain things so that the Secretary of State can verify the information provided and ensure that the register is up-to-date and accurate. Will the Minister explain why subsection (3)(b) is necessary? What is lost which will be of value to the holder of the card if the paragraph were removed from the Bill? Surely paragraph (a) verification should be sufficient to ensure that the information entered is correct and up-to-date. If something is out of date, one should say so. Is not that the act of verification?
	Subsection (3)(b) may be not only otiose but could confer an undesirably wide power on the Secretary of State. My amendment therefore limits the power in paragraph (b) to one of requiring an individual to verify information held in circumstances where the card has been cancelled or recalled in accordance with the provisions set out in Clause 13(2)(a) to (d). Those provisions cover four sets of circumstances: that the card was issued on the basis of incorrect information; the card has been lost, damaged or destroyed; the information held on the register has changed, or there has been a change of circumstance which means that the information has to be modified.
	Amendment No. 56A probes what information it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to require an individual to provide in order to verify the register. Can the noble Baroness indicate what limitation should be put on the range of information that may be required? Amendment No. 59E refers to Clause 12, which sets out how changes in circumstances should be notified to the Secretary of State in order to maintain the accuracy of the register. The Secretary of State is given the wide power of being able to require an individual to do whatever he "thinks fit" for the purposes of verifying information and making sure that the entry is up to date. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State. He would be able to require the person to give information only if he thinks what he is requiring from that person is essential for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).
	What of value would be lost by this sensible restriction which protects the individual from too wide a power of the Secretary of State? I beg to move.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, as noble Lords may have guessed, I have missed a few sessions of this Bill and so lost the cadence of the House a little. Coming back, I have to say that not much has changed. I feel as though I am in a small corner of Britain which is somehow disconnected from what is happening in the rest of the country. It has been my view from the start that while of course it is true that there are issues of liberty as well as security in this, the real point is that the proposed Bill is about identity and about people strengthening their identity. In that context, the state and the Secretary of State are not enemies of the people, but helpers or enablers of the people. This complete failure to understand where the public is on the issue is beyond me.
	My noble friend at the Dispatch Box has reminded us that the Labour Party fought an election on ID cards. This is not just a public opinion thing. Members of the public want them, profoundly. They want them because they want to be able to assert their identity and they do not see the Secretary of State as some kind of villain in this, but as a friend in this new world.
	Of course noble Lords may feel that they have won the odd vote, and so they have. But I can tell them this: in the end, while they may have won the odd battle, the war will be won over here. In the end, the public will not be denied. This is a fundamental issue. It is not just of public concern; it addresses the forces and changes of the new politics that will happen. Over time, noble Lords will come to understand that it is right that this is done. It is not the case that the state is the enemy of the people. The people have many enemies. This Bill will help to protect them from the real enemies they face.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, if the noble Lord who has just spoken thinks that the people of Somerset want ID cards, I advise him to go and consult them. In other areas, the public are not yet aware of the kind of ugly beast with its compulsory powers that is creeping up on them.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gould, may continue in his blissful belief that this is a corner of Britain which is completely out of touch with what is going on anywhere else. Since the Bill began its passage through this House and the noble Lord made his speeches, it is my experience that the people where I live are extremely grateful that Members of the House of Lords are asking a lot of questions. They may or may not be happy about identity cards; I think their view has changed a bit while we have been examining the Bill, but that will be revealed as time goes on. However, I repeat that they are extremely grateful that we are asking questions.
	The question just asked by my noble friend—whether it is right that Clause 9(4)(d) should provide that the Secretary of State may ask for any information he likes for the purpose of the Bill—is a good question. My noble friend suggests that he should seek any information that is "reasonably required". If a citizen were to take the Government to court over what was being asked of him, the test would be whether the question was reasonable. That is a perfectly good point.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord still resents everything that noble Lords on this side of the Chamber are seeking to do.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gould, is wonderfully provocative. He did not refer to these Report stage amendments, rather he made a good Second Reading speech. I am not going to rise to the bait, but I am blowed if I know which of the amendments he was speaking to. The noble Baroness who has just spoken made some eminently commonsense points. To insert the word "reasonably", as proposed in Amendment No. 56A, is entirely sensible, while to insert the word proposed in Amendment No. 59E, so that reference is made to "essential" in Clause 12(3) is again absolute common sense.
	This is not a case of the paranoia of the state, but of producing sensible legislation that achieves its purpose. I wholly support the amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not yet, I am afraid.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We hope to reach a short adjournment fairly soon.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister will be delayed a little, but I am afraid her noble friend Lord Gould has made it essential for me to say a few words. If he believes that the British people are profoundly in favour of the Bill, then he is sadly out of touch. I confess that so far I have not received one letter in favour of the Bill, but I have had many opposed to it. Indeed, I have had a letter from a number of my former constituents, who earlier this month conducted a straw poll in Swindon. They found that of the 400 people they contacted, eight were in favour of ID cards, and of those eight, six were uninformed about the national identity register. When they found out about it, they changed their minds. The poll suggested 398 to two against ID cards in my former constituency. So it is by no means certain that the people of this country are profoundly in favour of ID cards and a national identity register as proposed by this Bill.
	I thought I would put forward those points because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gould, likes to listen to debates, even though he does not take part in them too often. I hope that my remarks are helpful to him.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to provide the clarification sought by the noble Baroness. I understand the frustration felt by my noble friend Lord Gould on these matters, and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that, having made the speeches he has made in relation to this Bill, it is a brave man indeed who would make criticisms on the nature of Second Reading speeches. Perhaps I should say no more on the subject.
	The words inserted by the amendment are not needed for the effective operation or security of the scheme. I know that the amendments are probing in nature and have been tabled in order to ensure that we amplify why we think Clause 9(3)(b) is important. If a card is cancelled under Clause 13(2)(a) to (d), the holder will no longer have a valid card. If he is subject to compulsory registration, he will be obliged by Clause 9(2) to apply for another. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9 will already apply to him, as they do to those who are applying for the first time or because their cards have expired, and there is no reason to make separate provision for those whose cards have been cancelled. Under the present Clause 9(3)(b), the Secretary of State would be able to request, if it should be necessary, that a person whose card had been cancelled should attend, provide information and so on in a way that was proper. That would not be necessary if, for example, which we do not anticipate, there happened to be a simple technical fault with a batch of cards that required their reissue. He would be under no obligation to do so, and would not do so. It would be in no-one's interest to inconvenience people and burden the registration centres unnecessarily. I imagine that is why the noble Baroness has omitted Clause 13(2)(e) from her amendment. I see her nodding.
	This amendment, however, would have other effects that I am confident the noble Baroness would not wish. The words in Clause 9(3)(b) are the same as those in Clauses 5(4)(b) and 12(3)(b). If the present provision in Clause 9(3)(b) were removed, we could only verify information provided in an initial application or application for renewal. If a person omitted to include certain pieces of information, the Secretary of State would be unable to require that he provide that information as he would otherwise do under paragraph (d) or Clause 9(4). We would also be unable, for example, to take an up-to-date photograph of the applicant, even if the one on the register was many years old, as photographs would be taken by the agency, not provided by the applicant. It is vital that the register is kept up to date and accurate, although there are some who would far prefer their photograph aged 21 than at any subsequent time. Many of the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite have been designed to ensure that it is, and I know that is a matter of importance to the noble Baroness.
	Amendment No. 56A seeks to ensure that individuals would only have to provide such information as may be reasonably required by the Secretary of State. The power to require information in Clause 9(4)(d) is already restricted by subsection (3) to requiring information for the purposes of verifying information provided by the person concerned or necessary to confirm his register entry. In any case, however, it is not necessary to provide that the Secretary of State must act reasonably. He is under a public duty to do so, and will be subject to judicial review if he does not. Prescribing that he must act reasonably would imply that all the Secretary of State's other powers could be exercised unreasonably. I am sure that is not what the noble Baroness would like. The Secretary of State is bound to act reasonably in ensuring that a person has a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry. We believe he must have the power to do so.
	Amendment No. 59E provides that the Secretary of State may only require an individual to attend an interview or provide information if he considers it essential, rather than thinks fit. The power in Clause 12(3) only arises where the holder of an ID card has notified the Secretary of State that there has been a relevant change of circumstances or that there is an error on the register. On receiving that notification, the Secretary of State can require the person concerned to attend for interview, provide biometrics, be photographed or provide other information, but these powers can only be used for the purposes of verifying information relating to changes or otherwise ensuring there is a complete, up-to-date entry. In many cases, no further information will be required. For example, if someone were to notify of a change of name on marriage and send their marriage certificate, there would obviously be no need to require an interview or biometrics before amending the register.
	After that full and comprehensive response, I hope the noble Baroness will feel that her diverse amendments are unnecessary, and will be content, not only to withdraw them, but also to ensure that we never have the pleasure of seeing them again.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I do like to give pleasure to the Minister, and on this occasion I certainly can. I forgive the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, much. Never mind if it was a Second Reading speech; welcome back. He is the first Government Back-Bencher to speak today. He was speaking in support of the Government, so that was interesting. We have certainly missed him in our deliberations. I know that noble Lords were not able to take part in all six days in Committee, so there is absolutely no criticism of those who do not attend on each and every occasion. Had he been able to do so, however, he would have seen the Government's plans being pulled apart and some severe concerns being expressed. I know he has maintained throughout that the public profoundly want ID cards. The difficulty has been that it is a case of what ID cards and how. A recent survey on 18-20 November—I know the noble Lord is wedded to surveys, though I hope I may divorce him from them yet—showed a continued drop in support for ID cards to 50 per cent and a rise in public opposition to the Home Office scheme to 48 per cent. The gap is closing. Let's see what happens next.
	I return to the amendment. In thanking the Minister, I should like to explain that there is a flurry of amendments here that are probing in nature, as are all my amendments for the rest of the evening. I have made it clear that I wish to assist the Bill team and the Government in reaching Amendment No. 64E. During the dinner break, which the Minister in particular so richly deserves, I will look through to see which amendments I can pull, so we might even end a few minutes early. My overall reason for tabling these probing amendments is that I hope to be extremely sparing with my amendments when we get to Third Reading. I am extremely grateful to her, and she will not see these again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. That will greatly assist us with our consideration of the Bill. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned, and in moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage does not begin again before 8.38 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Palestine

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that the next debate is an organisational nightmare. First, the good news: one speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has withdrawn, and therefore we are down to 16 speakers, in addition to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who opens the debate. Nevertheless, we will have to stick to the two-minute time limit. I emphasise that all noble Lords will have had their share when two minutes appears on the clock. Those who contribute effectively to the debate will not even see that two minutes register, but those who do see it must sit down immediately, otherwise the debate will not meet its timetable.

Lord Dykes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they will put forward for the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
	My Lords, after the wise words of the Whip on duty on the Bench, it behoves me, unfortunately, to rattle through my remarks to stay within the time limit. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I sound presumptuous in saying that the last thing I would want is to have to give way if anyone tried to intervene. That would also impair noble Lords' own chances of speaking for a couple of minutes.
	The Times newspaper, normally with an editorial line friendly towards Israel, said it all in its world news piece on 23 December: the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem now includes 15 checkpoints, so Joseph and Mary would have felt the need for patience on their passage. The route actually includes a portion of roadway where Palestinians generally are banned, even in their own territory. A tough friend of mine, an ex-rugby player type, recently visited the West Bank. He is used to harrowing scenes all over the world. I asked him for his reaction, and he simply replied: "I cried".
	I too went on the first ever IPU visit to the same areas in November to see the Palestinian National Authority, as well as going briefly to Israel. Our group was led by Sir Gerald Kaufman MP and included Roger Berry MP, Tom Levitt MP and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Incidentally, there was a brilliant debate in Westminster Hall with those MPs last Wednesday, and the first and third of them spoke in it very convincingly, as did David Winnick and Phyllis Starkey, echoing their concerns.
	I speak as a longstanding friend of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will know from our work together many years ago. I still remain a very enthusiastic fan of what I regard as a truly great and fascinating country. It is only the occupation policies in the occupied territories that I find unacceptable. The Sharon government were allowed by insouciant western and UN inaction in recent years to create an awful kind of open prison for the Palestinians—nearly 700 check points, new apartheid routes for Israeli use only, oppressive queues for shuffling Palestinian citizens and clogged up vehicles and, of course, the burgeoning illegal settlements. Near the old borders—the green line—they are virtually on every hill top. Hebron, for example, has become a bizarre ghost city.
	These severe restrictions are all over the West Bank, not only in areas near the border. They are all totally illegal under international law. Now we have the hideous wall as well, nearly complete, at huge cost to Israel's taxpayers. As we know, security preoccupations have been the reason given for all these developments. Ironically, the Israeli intelligence services have often opposed the dafter measures.
	If the Oslo accords had been adhered to, then the two countries could already have been on the path of stunning, peaceful co-operation, probably launching a near east common market and talking to other modern-minded Arabian countries nearby about getting together and working together.
	Let us look at these two countries now. I use the word "country" deliberately for Palestine because I want it to be one, and very soon. What happened, incidentally, to President Bush's solemn promise of a Palestinian state by the end of 2005? Has Pat Robertson sneaked into the White House briefings? Let us take Israel first—a country, as I say, much admired abroad despite its government's actions towards Palestine. Israel benefited quite rightly from huge world support when it was founded in 1948, endorsed by the UN with the Soviet Union a notable ally. Although the Palestinians lost large chunks of territory and were very bitter at the time, many look back at the mistake they made in not accepting, even if reluctantly, the partition proposals. Israel's existence and future welfare is a major inalienable piece of the near east mosaic for virtually all UN member states now—perhaps the president of Iran is a notable painful exception.
	As Israel was struggling it understandably received more and more support over the years. Finally, the USA ensured that Israel became the unbeatable military power in the whole area. Israel acquired nearly 200 nuclear bombs in strange circumstances and refuses to join the NPT effort. That is part of the wider scene. But, amazingly what America did not do reciprocally was to oblige Israel's governments successively to obey international law as the unbeatable military power and, after 1967, negotiate a peace and leave the territories of the Palestinians.
	The shameful record of well over 30 US vetoes, stopping Israel from such correct behaviour since 1967 tells its own tragic story. This record alone rendered the US unfit to assume its arbitrational role, but still the US and Israel insisted on this unique role, and everyone else was told to mind their own business.
	Meanwhile, the country, now of nearly 7 million people, including its Arab minority, has, I am very glad to say, prospered economically, also with huge US aid, despite being an advanced country. It offers a great deal to the world as an increasingly normal country in its own right, especially in the fields of medicine, high technology exports, sport, the arts, business acumen, aid and development to the third world, advice on agriculture, its own agricultural activity, trade union traditions and military equipment. The list is very long indeed. It was supposed to be a Zionist secular state, but the religious factor has increased enormously in recent years. I rejoice greatly when I observe all the forces of moderation in Israel who surely will insist on a peace treaty with Palestine as they realise more and more that that gives them the durable absence of terrorism which they understandably crave.
	I rejoice when I see the work of Daniel Barenboim, with his joint orchestra, of Steven Spielberg highlighting the futility of the endless cycle of violence, of Peace Now, with its impressive UK support committee, the brave actions of the Israeli ladies who monitor the checkpoints and the harsh behaviour of Israeli soldiers, the heroic work of Bets'Elem, the human rights group and the courageous Israeli military who protest against actions in the West Bank by the IDF. Happily, despite all this tragic history and background, and the awful developments on the West Bank, there are still many examples of Israeli-Palestinian co-operation. I wish I had time to mention some of those on that excellent list, which includes joint factories.
	Then we look at Palestine, with roughly half the population, including Gaza. It also has talented people, with a diaspora like that of Israel but much nearer geographically. Palestine has wonderful agriculture, although some of it is deprived through Israeli military action, as we know. Palestine has very good manufacturing companies and very good business people striking potential in a revived fishing sector, and excellent potential in natural gas assets, which belong to Palestine and not to Israel. Palestine also has an inevitably weak government, struggling, as Israel did in the early days, to establish themselves. But for some strange reason it does not receive the US help that Israel did. Palestine is now down to 22 per cent of the total land space.
	I find on visits that Palestinian civil society is very similar to that of its neighbour Israel, despite the wars, disputes, rows, setbacks, the intifadas and the IDF violence. The population has mostly remained overwhelmingly moderate Muslim and empirical. The official renunciation of terrorism has not been used by Israeli politicians properly. It is very sad to say that. Israel has had 1,000 casualties since the previous intifada, Palestine 4,000.
	Is it not high time that the other members of the quartet asserted themselves, bearing in mind US failure to act properly in getting the two countries together? We leave it to the Americans and I am afraid that we usually regret it afterwards nowadays. Anyway, even if that is a fanciful notion, bearing in mind the primordial stance of the United States in Israeli circles, it is obvious that the EU plans to make a real fuss of the Palestinians in the future by creating, for example, a favoured nation status with a new association agreement, will help to correct the hideous imbalance and asymmetry of power between the two. I remind the House that there are still nearly 8,000 detainees, most of whom have not been through court actions in Israel or elsewhere. Despite all this, Israeli public opinion is in favour of bringing back its settlers from the occupied territories, especially after the Gaza pull-out. We should look at the fascinating latest poll on east Jerusalem.
	How irresponsible it was, therefore, for the United States president—sadly, the worst in post-war history—to go back on the Sharm-el-Sheikh solemn agreement for the road map and unilaterally accept the exact words of Sharon in saying, first, that security concerns were a priority rather than concomitant with the other conditions, and, secondly, that the green line could be abandoned at a stroke to fit in with Likud's original plans for greater colonisation. In the immortal words of Gerald Kaufman,
	"if Sharon was a centrist, then God help Israel".
	Now, sadly and tragically, we will never know whether Sharon's mindset had really changed.
	In two days' time, thank goodness, we have the elections for the PLC, amid hopes that a more pragmatic Hamas, having at least diluted its charter aim to remove the Zionist state—its election literature does not include any references to that—will join in a positive managerial and technocratic government to relaunch the shamefully neglected road map framework once the Israeli elections have been held.
	I am convinced that Palestinian political restraint has kept new terrorist attacks to almost invisible levels in recent months despite some tragic incidents recently. Once a new government are formed in Israel after the end March elections, if members of the Security Council present a new resolution solemnly obliging the new Ministers to re-open the road map peace talks, will the US dare to veto that again? If so, madness will have definitely taken hold in Washington. It would be much better none the less to see both Israel and Palestine getting together without any United Nations Security Council pressure. Is that possible? It certainly should be if Israel's politicians are genuine about following up Gaza withdrawal with complete departure from the occupied territories, and renouncing the secret agreement made between Bush and Sharon last year. Given wisdom and foresight in Washington DC, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, I firmly believe that it is, despite the dreadful tragedy of recent years. The Palestinian economy must be rebuilt, including with EU support. I hope that the Minister will have time to list some examples of both British and EU plans.
	France and Germany came together in spectacular friendship and reconciliation after 1945. How can the Palestinians and the Israelis say that they cannot do the same?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this debate at this crucial time, given the current Palestinian elections and the run-up to the Israeli elections. I hope that during this period Her Majesty's Government will continue to talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians about their shortcomings and successes. In my view those conversations are often best held in private.
	You have to be frank with the Palestinians about their problems with security and the economy, and also frank with the Israelis about the illegal expansion of their settlements and the unacceptable route of the barrier, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, heartbreaking at times. We also have to acknowledge their successes. This has been a year of success for the Palestinians in their elections and pushing forward on their economy and for the Israelis in what they have done regarding the withdrawal from Gaza. Those measures have taken real political courage on both sides, and we should acknowledge that if we are to support this peace process.
	There has been enormous progress on the loss of life: 51 Israelis killed in 2005, as opposed to 119 in 2004, and a 75 per cent drop in Palestinian deaths over the same period. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is right in that we ought to be giving economic support, but he is not right in suggesting that we have let the United States take all the strain on this. We have not done so. This Government have not done so over the security issues addressed on 1 March, nor over the many meetings the Chancellor has had in the region. Witness the support he had in London with the donor community and the private sector community coming together to support the Palestinian economy. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, should look at the Government's real achievements in that respect. I, for one, believe that what is to be achieved is the continuation of what has been done on security, on political support and on the economy. It is not flashy; it is consistent and methodical and we should go on with those proposals in this run-up to the elections.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I have two small points, since two minutes and the clerical mindset do not go easily together. First, the Ethical Investment Advisory Group of the Church of England, of which I am vice-chair, has recently had several searing months of exchange about investment in Caterpillar. That exposed us, as many Members of this House will be exposed in other connections, to intense lobbying on both sides of the argument and to an intense parade of the searing realities of the situation in Palestine and Israel. The first point I wish to make is that out of that discussion came the very strong intervention of the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem, making the point that if there is to be a viable Palestinian state, it must also make provision for the retention of its Christian population. That is not something he holds against the Palestinian authority, but against the situation in which they now find themselves, and which is causing the steady depletion of the Christian population.
	Secondly, out of all the discussion about disinvestment came the very strong and, I think, very important, intervention of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is chair of the Council of Christians and Jews. It was a very non-partisan intervention. He said,
	"more important than disinvestment is that we should, together, be talking about investment, in the construction of both those countries; the enablement of both those countries to flourish; and create economies that can, because they have the aspirations and possibilities, be co-operative".
	If we do not do that, if we simply apply sticks to the situation and no carrots, it is very unlikely that there will be progress. I hope that this is an aspect to which Her Majesty's Government will give very serious attention.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I have just returned from a visit to the Middle East, where I talked to and listened to the leaders—Palestinians, Arabs and Israelis. They have one thing in common: they want peace for their people. The question is: how do you achieve peace now? How do you achieve peace, for example, in the face of Hamas retaining in its charter, not as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes pointed out, the demand for the destruction of Israel? Yes, they have removed it from election material, under pressure, but it is still there. They are still a terrorist organisation. How do the Israelis make peace with them? How do they make peace in the face of suicide bombing? Last week, in the middle of the election campaign, suicide bombers murdered innocent people by a bus station in the middle of Tel Aviv. How can they find people to work with? There are excellent senior Palestinians who want peace and we must hope that they will be at the head of their nation after their election this coming week.
	I know, because I have met most of them—leaders of Palestinians and Israelis, Jordanians and Egyptians—that above all they recognise and require and demand the right for their people to live in peace and without fear. As an Arab proverb has it, this cannot be done "on one hand alone". There is no way in which you can have a handshake with one hand alone; both sides must want it. Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres have taken over together; I know them and they are both peaceniks, both people who seek to find ways to peace. They are both very bright people. They need a partner; they need from the Palestinians people who will work together with them for peace, for a better world for both their peoples to live in; to ensure that there is an advance of democracy; a right of people to vote; a right of people to live in peace; and a right for the terrorists to be removed from Hamas and others who are in authority in Palestine or any other Arab land.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, on the eve of the Palestinian elections, can we for a moment again consider the situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territories? Even Gaza has been described, after the Israeli withdrawal, as "one big prison". The United States special envoy, James Wolfensohn, has accused Israel of acting as though there had been no withdrawal. To echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, how do the Palestinians make peace in these circumstances?
	In the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Palestinians are still under virtual siege, with the continuing intrusion of the so-called security fence; the isolation of West Bank cities; and the continuing expansion of illegal settlements. Even the United States has criticised the controversial E-1 plan, which not only houses some 34,000 settlers, but allows for a further 14,000. Is it surprising that we are seeing increasing radicalisation of the Palestinians, who face a decreasing prospect of the viable and contiguous Palestinian state envisaged by the road map?
	I hope that the Minister can help us to expect some genuine and positive action from the quartet. I hope that she can confirm that, if Hamas does indeed secure a significant share of the vote, that would not mean any lessening of EU financial and political support for the Palestinian authority, and, whatever the outcome of these elections, we will be ready to deal with whatever authority emerges. The situation of the Palestinians is appalling and getting worse. It is time that the international community woke up to its responsibilities. If we do not, the future for both Israel and Palestine is bleak.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza must be the aim of everyone who wishes well the Middle East in general and the Palestinian and Israeli people in particular. I am very pleased that the UK has been and is actively engaged in trying to take forward the road map for peace.
	Tony Blair hosted an international conference in London in March 2005, where delegates from the quartet, the World Bank, IMF and the Arab League promised financial support and the Palestinian Authority made commitments, which, in fact, it still has to fulfil. Gordon Brown, in September 2005, commissioned a report on support for the peace process through economic development, and in December hosted a series of discussions between Israeli and Palestinian finance ministers and the G8 on private sector investment, about which my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean has spoken.
	As part of the Rafah agreement, for the first time ever giving Palestinians control over one of their own international borders, Israel arranged for the 2005 harvest to be exported from Gaza and agreed truck convoys between Gaza and the West Bank. It is clear that relaxations of Israeli restrictions on movement must be accompanied by deep-rooted political, economic and security reforms on the Palestinian side. Time prevents me from giving concrete examples of exactly what needs to be done under these headings. Much hangs on the Palestinian elections this Wednesday and the Israeli elections in March. Friends of both people have to hope that wise and moderate counsels prevail in both elections.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I submit that a viable Palestine requires a flourishing Gaza. I therefore ask: is the Eretz industrial park on the north side of Gaza functioning now? It has already employed many Gazans. A new fishing harbour for Gaza is an urgent requirement and, I understand, could be ready in six months. Will funds be allocated for that purpose? Land crossings out of Gaza into Israel and Egypt, and into the West Bank, as was mentioned, are essential. What progress is there on the connection with the West Bank?
	The airport requires repairs. Can those be put in hand? A new commercial ship harbour will be required. That will take several years, but are plans at least being made for it now?
	Sewerage improvements again are urgently needed. Is there any news of them? It so happens that British Gas owns the offshore rights and could develop them for exporting natural gas via Egypt. By 2010, the Palestinian Authority could have revenue of $100 million per year which will last for 12 years. Again, that surely must be started. It would open the way to a desalination plant in Gaza. Prosperity is what is required to replace terrorism, and those matters cannot simply be left until after the elections.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, a viable Palestinian state is clearly dependent on a complex set of activities by many parties, each of which has to interact with one another. However, at the end of the line, a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel are entirely dependent on those two parties reaching an agreement acceptable to each of them. What we in the UK can best do is maintain the balanced approach, offering encouragement to both parties. In the nature of things, Israel is unlikely to compromise much on its security and the safety of its citizens, but the formation of the new political party Kadima by Ariel Sharon has been a very important and brave step, which has allowed Ehud Olmert to begin to speak at least about East Jerusalem and further withdrawals from the West Bank.
	It should be encouraging to the Palestinians at least that that new political party is maintaining strong public support in Israel. But the Palestinians have to be able to take advantage of such opportunities as they now appear to be arising. Terrorist activities have to be curtailed, and the leadership needs to be helped to listen to its own citizens and not to heed the clarion calls emanating from Iran and Syria. If Israel is going to be able to relax its security, Hamas will have to drop its calls for the total destruction of Israel. What sort of negotiating position is that? Even the IRA did not call for the annihilation of England and the English.
	Much will depend on the results of the two sets of elections. The UK and the international community should be ready to provide aid and investment for the Palestinians as they begin to emerge from the anarchy that, unfortunately, besets them at present.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Symons paid tribute to the courage of the political leadership in both Israel and Palestine over the past 12 months in taking forward hopes for a negotiated settlement and the creation of two what will be interdependent states. I would like to spend the time that I have tonight paying tribute to the individual citizens on either side of the green line who, often with great personal courage, have put their efforts into civil-society organisations that work across those barriers. They are trying to create a society that is fair not only for themselves, but for their counterparts on the other side of the green line.
	The example that I know best is One Voice; I declare an interest because my son works for it. It has enrolled 180,000 citizens—51 per cent of them Palestinian, 49 per cent Israeli—willing to commit to becoming advocates for a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution, and to engage in the process of prioritisation over the difficult issues that will have to be resolved. Often at great personal risk, those people are willing to persuade their fellow citizens that there is a way out of the anarchy. Having read, for example, the report in the Guardian today about the situation in Gaza, none of us can be confident, but those people are willing to stand up. Religious leaders affiliated to the organisation are willing to go on Arab television in 17 countries—they are doing so at the moment—to try to persuade people to participate in the elections and for a negotiated settlement.
	From that basis, we should pay tribute to those organisations and to the individuals willing to look forward and represent the 76 per cent of the population in both communities who want peace.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, the Government have already done a great deal to promote a viable Palestinian state. The commitment to the road map, the London conference in March last year and the Chancellor's initiatives to promote economic development in a Palestinian state all testify to that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out. The good will is there also in the European Union and global institutions, but I am in no doubt that there needs to be constant pressure on all the countries of the region and the Palestinian Authority in order to make progress. For too long, it has suited some—I stress "some"—to leave the Palestinian question unresolved. One wonders what the objectives of those countries were.
	The most immediate need is for the Palestinian Authority to restore law and order in Gaza. It has to be able to control the use of arms and end the activities of militant gangs that do not serve the people's interest. The objective of Hamas—it has been referred to already; I do not share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes—in seeking to destroy the state of Israel condemns the region to perpetual conflict. I cannot see how that can be a position for any party that hopes to have significant representation in Palestine. There must be a clear commitment to end terrorist attacks on Israel, and an equally strong and unequivocal commitment to the two-state solution that assures the security of Israel.
	Our Government have done much already and I applaud their efforts. I hope that they will feel encouraged to take matters further forward.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, within the week we will know the result of the Palestinian election, and within nine weeks we will know the result of the Israeli election. My guess is that, by the end of March, both the Palestinians and the Israelis will have new governments run by parties that have never previously held office. The real prospect of Hamas winning the Palestinian election is worrying, and is causing Israelis and many in the West very deep misgivings. After all, Hamas has been the prime exponent of the suicide bombings that have killed so many Israelis. But within Palestine, Hamas has grown in stature. Its members are seen as the incorruptibles in a very corrupt society. Palestine suffers some of the most acute poverty and worst unemployment in the world, despite the fact that the PA has been given £6 billion in international aid. Sadly, most of it has been siphoned off to pals and cronies; such is the Arafat legacy. If Hamas wins the election, it will have done it through the democratic process. If we advocate democracy throughout the Middle East, we must welcome the process, even if we are not happy with the result. Hamas may be terrorists, but they will be elected terrorists.
	In Israel, the most likely new Prime Minister is Ehud Olmert. He will continue the Sharon plan of gradual disengagement from the West Bank and the quest for peace. To succeed, both parties need strong leaders. Will they appear? I hope so.

Lord Winston: My Lords, I too pay tribute to our Government, who have done a notable job in keeping their counsel wisely and quietly, and doing their very best in the Middle East. In this Chamber as outside it—not in this debate, I am very pleased to say, laudably—extreme views often have not helped the purposes of peace in the Middle East. I hope that one of the things that we might do in this country is to be aware of the need for careful debate rather than the sort of florid hate debate that we so often hear.
	One of the key problems at the moment is the huge difficulty for the Palestinians. They basically want good health and hygiene, better local government, security, a normal sort of existence and, above all, prosperity. Sometimes in the past, their prosperity depended on employment in Israel. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, railed against the security fence, but that is an inevitability given the risks to the Israeli citizen at the present time. It is not unique. An 1,800-mile security fence exists in India and Pakistan. There is a security fence between Saudi Arabia and Yemen; there is a fence in Kyrgyzstan; and there is a fence in parts of Malaysia. Sadly, there are fences all over the world because of the threats of violence. I hope that that situation will change, but it is difficult to see that when one has the risk, on the one hand, of a very corrupt government, led by Fatah, and, on the other, a government who are notoriously, apparently, implacably opposed to Israel existing at all. That remains a major problem. We can only hope that that will change, but we must be cautious and make certain that the kind of words that we use do not inflame the situation.

Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: My Lords, in a modest way, I have tried to improve Arab-Jewish relations in Jerusalem. I believe strongly that the Palestinians are entitled to live a secure and decent life in a state governed by their own people. The problem is how they can achieve that when they are faced by the realities on the ground.
	An article in the Guardian today, headlined Lawless in Gaza, gives an alarming and dispiriting account of the violence that is taking place there, with Palestinians turning guns on each other in a way that they previously had done against the Israelis. This breakdown in society is sometimes blamed on Israeli policies, but it is largely a legacy of the irresponsible and corrupt leadership of the late Yasser Arafat. The Palestinian Authority, now under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, is well aware of the need to improve both the political and economic situation, but with continuing corruption and massive unemployment, it may not have the ability to do so.
	The increasing political power of Hamas adds a further complication. Possibly, Hamas is beginning to believe that its involvement in the political process may further its cause more than violence. But that is an optimistic view, and optimism in the Middle East has seldom been justified. Will Fatah and Hamas be able to settle their differences without yet more violence?
	The British Government have been constructive and forceful in trying to achieve a just settlement in the Middle East. I hope that they will continue to do so, in particular to help the Palestinians establish a peaceful and just society. The Israelis also need to be convinced that a future Palestinian state will not be a lawless and violent neighbour. Without that, it will be extremely difficult for Israeli politicians to convince their public to accept the inevitable compromises that any settlement will entail.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords—

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief points. Most of the points have been made already. I welcome progress on the Israeli side. It needs to be welcomed; it needs to be encouraged. While we all want to see faster progress, movement is in the right direction. Interestingly, despite what looks like the final departure of Mr Sharon, Kadima has created a base and it looks like it is going to make real electoral progress. It is going to be supported by the acting Prime Minister. Surely that is a movement in the right direction. The withdrawal of all settlements from Gaza and a small number in the West Bank during the summer; the Rafah border agreement in November; the acceptance of the need to reduce movement restrictions; and a widespread acceptance in Israel ahead of the elections that further withdrawals from the West Bank will be necessary in the future are surely all welcome signs of progress.
	It is not to blame everything on the Palestinians, but we have to recognise that there has been a lack of reform in the Palestinian Authority which stands in the way of Palestinian state-building and makes it harder for Israel to make progress on easing the burden on Palestinians.
	I wish to make a final point. Will the Minister say what practical steps the Government can now take to ensure that Palestinians fulfil their commitments to put in place democratic and accountable institutions of state, ending the reign of violence, chaos and corruption? What developments will it take for Israel to further relax its restrictions on Palestinian movement?

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting his flow in my enthusiasm to get to my feet. He and many other noble Lords have set out so eloquently the fact that we are being drawn to treat with Hamas by virtue of the likely outcome of a democratic process in the Palestinian legislature. It presents us, the European Union, the United States and indeed Israel with both threats and opportunities in pursuit of the peace process.
	The threat is the challenge to Israel's very existence by Hamas Islamists, and to the western and moderate Arab nations who regard Hamas as a terrorist movement. The opportunity lies with both Hamas and Israel changing their methods, with the US and the EU rethinking their approach to the peace process. We need to accept the democratic outcome of the Palestinian elections, and conditionally to engage with Hamas.
	Hamas needs to extend the current truce and cease all attacks on civilians in recognition of its democratic mandate and responsibility. We should be urging the US in particular to put pressure on Israel to halt the construction of new settlements and to halt the land grab. Without such action, at the very least, stability in the region will not be achieved. The creation and acceptance of two states, secure within defined borders, will remain a forlorn aspiration.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we must do everything that we can to assist Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate an agreement that guarantees a secure Israel and establishes a viable democratic state of Palestine.
	The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza had given hope to a renewed peace process, but instead has seen the area plunge into in-fighting. What investigation have Her Majesty's Government taken into the allegations that Iranians are delivering missiles that can reach targets deep into Israel?
	The political landscape looks set for change and uncertainty. Many noble Lords have mentioned the prospects of Kadima in Israel. The Palestinian Authority has been accused increasingly of political ineptitude and rampant corruption. Some 80 per cent of people in Gaza are unemployed and 68 per cent live below the poverty line. What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that the Palestinian authorities are being made transparent and accountable? International financial assistance is needed, but, in light of the levels of corruption, it is vital that we take steps to check that the aid gets to the people whom it is designed to help. The situation in Gaza is winning Hamas unprecedented popular support.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for tabling this timely debate. Its importance is underlined by the number of speakers. It is clear that a longer debate is needed and I trust that we will have one in the near future, perhaps to coincide with the important elections in Israel.
	As many noble Lords have said, this is a key moment for the peace process, with the first elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council since 1996 due to take place in just two days. The actions of the legislative council and of the Palestinian Authority in the coming weeks and months will truly have a significant impact on the viability of a future Palestinian state, as will developments in Israel.
	The noble Lords, Lord Wright, Lord Janner and Lord Mitchell, understandably raised the issue of Hamas. As my noble friend Lord Triesman stated in the House last week, our position is clear: we welcome the participation of a wide range of parties in all elections, and it must be for the people of the area to make their decisions. That is democracy; but I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on the outcome of the elections.
	However, after the elections, together with the international community, we will of course have to consider our position. I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that the recent suspension of EU funding has nothing to do with the elections. That decision was taken last month because the Palestinian Authority has not met the financial benchmarks that have been agreed. However, we hope that disbursement will be possible in the spring or summer. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that that is a good example of the way that we are trying to ensure that the Palestinian Authority works in a much more financially accountable way.
	My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on 29 November that the prospects for peace in the Middle East were better now than at any time in the past four and a half years. Much has happened since then, including the tragic illness of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. His plan for disengagement from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank was a significant first step towards the creation of a separate and viable state of Palestine, alongside a secure state of Israel. Naturally the Government welcome all efforts to bring that about at government and official level. We salute what has been happening.
	We also salute and pay tribute to those working with civil society. My noble friend Lady Hayman referred to One Voice, which is a fine example of an organisation that is nurturing understanding and trust across borders. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, mentioned the sterling work of Daniel Barenboim and many others. He is right to say that both Israel and the state of Palestine would have much to offer both as people and the wider world.
	We fully support the work of quartet special envoy, James Wolfensohn, in following up that plan to support the Palestinian Authority in creating strong and viable institutions to improve the economy and governance. That is imperative for the future of the peace process. My noble friend Lord Bernstein and other noble Lords referred to the need to create jobs because unemployment has been such a problem in the Palestinian Authority. I am pleased to report that we fully support the job creation initiatives of Mr Wolfensohn. In working with UNRA, we assisted with the creation of 7,000 jobs in the West Bank and Gaza last year, and we hope that a further 14,000 will be created in 2006.
	As part of the road map commitments, the Palestinian Authority is undertaking a series of comprehensive political reforms in preparation for statehood, including drafting a constitution, and free, fair and open elections. The elections have given a renewed democratic mandate to the PA. The EU supports this process and has sent a substantial election-monitoring mission. We are pleased with the progress being made, but more concerted action needs be taken by the PA to take these initiatives forward to make their institutions credible. We, along with the international community, will do all that we can to help, but it is up to the PA to push the agenda forward. As my noble friend Lord Winston said, the Palestinian people want normality.
	The security situation in the West Bank—especially Gaza—is a cause of growing concern. The PA needs to take steps to effectively tackle terrorism and impose law and order for the sake of wider peace, but just as importantly in the interests of its own people. The work of James Wolfensohn and US security co-ordinator, General Dayton, and his predecessor, General Ward, has been vital. The Palestinian Authority has begun the task of strengthening the capacity of its security forces. The challenge is huge, but the international community, including the UK, is providing active support.
	As my noble friends Lady Ramsay and Lord Hogg have noted, the EU has been, and will continue to be, a key investor and catalyst for change in the region, helping to bring about much needed reform. The EU is strengthening its EUCOPPS programme to help transform the Palestinian civil police. Our focus is not just on security but on working to ensure the long-term economic viability of a Palestinian state. Last month Her Majesty's Treasury and the World Bank jointly hosted a conference called, "Promoting Economic Growth in the West Bank and Gaza through the Private Sector". It brought members of the business community together to discuss options for investment in Gaza and the West Bank.
	A strong economy will provide Palestinians with greater opportunities, more jobs and ultimately, prosperity. The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right when he says that we must focus on investment. That is what Her Majesty's Government are doing, and will continue to do. We certainly have not been waiting for the elections to foster prosperity, as has been suggested. We have been working bilaterally and with our EU partners for many years.
	Also last month, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-chaired the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, the international co-ordinating body for donors, attended by the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The meeting focused on economic developments in 2005, Palestinian reform and mid-term development planning, and looking ahead to a possible pledging conference in spring 2006. Most delegates concluded that they were willing to provide the Palestinian Authority with more assistance but that more work was needed from the PA to ensure that the money that it is given would be used effectively, to create stronger institutions and improve the conditions for wider prosperity.
	A key aspect of long term economic viability is access to the outside world, and freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, as regards which Israel has an important role to play. Last November's agreement on movement and access, including the opening of the Gaza-Egypt border crossing, was a huge step forward. The Rafah crossing point has remained open since 15 November, with the first truck loaded with merchandise leaving Gaza for Egypt on 19 December. The EU has played a vital role in allowing that to happen, providing a standing team of monitors able to vouch for the proper functioning of the agreement and building confidence between the two parties.
	Together with improvements to the movement of goods between Gaza and Israel, those seemingly technical issues are making an important contribution to creating a viable Palestinian state. We hope that other parts of the agreement can be implemented soon, most notably the opening of the sea and air ports—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—but also truck convoys between Gaza and the West Bank. It is of course for the parties themselves to discuss parts of the agreement such as the construction of the airport and the seaport, but both sides have naturally been preoccupied with the elections. However, we trust that as soon as the election period is over they will resume dialogue on the issue.
	Both the Israelis and Palestinians remain committed to implementing the road map. As my noble friend Lady Symons said, we must be frank with both sides, but we must pay tribute when they have achieved many great things. Considerable further action is required from the Palestinian Authority on security issues, good governance and the economy, but there is also more that Israel could do. The road map is clear that Israel should freeze all settlement activity including the natural growth of existing settlements, and dismantle all outposts built since March 2001. Settlement building is contrary to international law and is an obstacle to peace.
	There is more that Israel could do to increase confidence and help ensure the viability of a future Palestinian state. We hope that Israel can ease restrictions on movement and access to all parts of Gaza and the West Bank. That includes dismantling checkpoints and roadblocks; all "Marys and Josephs" should be able to pass. The route of the barrier must be amended to ensure that it is on or behind the green line. It is illegal for the barrier to be built on occupied land. We have raised our concerns about that with the Israeli Government on many occasions, and we will continue to do so.
	We have also made clear our concerns about Israeli policies in Jerusalem, which threaten to cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Those policies include the routing of the barrier on occupied territory, settlement activity both within and around East Jerusalem, and increasingly restricted access to Jerusalem for Palestinian residents who have blue Israeli identity cards but who live east of the barrier. That risks Palestinian territorial contiguity throughout the West Bank. Those practices fuel Palestinian anger, threaten to cut East Jerusalem off from the West Bank and make it more difficult for there to be a viable Palestinian state.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who mentioned Iran and the non-proliferation treaty, the British Government have on a number of occasions called on Israel and other states who accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states and to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and we will continue to do so. We take appropriate opportunities to discuss all aspects of non-proliferation with representatives of Israel and other governments.
	We believe that the road map remains the best way forward in creating a two-state nation and the establishment of a just and lasting peace, but both parties need to fulfil their obligations in order for that to become a reality. The road map provides for a viable and secure state of Palestine and a secure state of Israel, consistent with UN Security Council resolutions and the principle of land for peace. The coming period will be politically charged for both parties, but I hope and trust that their commitment to the principles of the road map will remain undiminished.

Business

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to move a Motion that is necessitated by the fairness of all noble colleagues who contributed to the debate. Everyone stayed within the time limit, and some did not even reach two minutes. It is therefore necessary, with some embarrassment, that I move that the House stand adjourned until 8.38 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.38 pm.]

Identity Cards Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 9.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 8, line 40, after "at" insert "an agreed place and time or (in the absence of agreement) at"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 56A and 57 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Functions of persons issuing designated documents]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must not make regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision prescribing requirements for the purposes of subsection (2) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 58A:
	After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
	"RECALL, SURRENDER ETC OF DOCUMENTS
	The Secretary of State or a designated documents authority may not by order under this Act, or any other enactment—
	(a) require the recall or surrender of, or act to invalidate, a document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any person authorised by them, which is lawfully held by an individual, if a purpose of the recall or invalidation is to—
	(i) require the individual to apply for or to purchase a replacement document which the Secretary of State has ordered or intends to order to be a designated document under this Act; or
	(ii) require the individual to apply to be entered in the Register; or
	(iii) require the individual to apply to be issued with an identity card; or
	(iv) enable the individual to be registered or to be issued with an identity card without his consent.
	(b) charge any individual for the cost of the replacement of a document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any person authorised by them, which is lawfully held by any individual, if he has encouraged or required the individual to surrender the document, or has invalidated the document, in order to—
	(i) require the individual to apply for or to purchase a replacement document which the Secretary of State has ordered or intends to order to be a designated document under this Act; or
	(ii) require the individual to apply to be entered in the Register; or
	(iii) require the individual to apply to be issued with an identity card; or
	(iv) enable the individual to be registered or to be issued with an identity card without his consent."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 62A and 62C. I have given notice that we will not move the following amendments, which would normally be debated before the target amendment, Amendment No. 64E, tonight: Amendments Nos. 59A to 59D, 62D, 64C and 64D. The matters that I wish to raise on those probing amendments may either properly be covered in other groups to be dealt with tonight, or I will able to consider whether they need to be brought to Third Reading. I hope that they will not.
	The purpose of the amendments under consideration is to prevent the Secretary of State recalling documents used in our everyday life, simply so that he may then force us to go on to the national identity register and have an ID card. I have alluded to that on occasions, particularly today. The concern is that, if the Secretary of State has already designated a passport under Clause 4, perhaps I have only just applied for one, and it has almost 10 years to run. I would expect to possess it for a period of 10 years, when I can decide whether I wish to apply for registration, with a new passport, ID card and all that that entails. I will not try to rerun some of the arguments on what is voluntary and what is forced about that.
	If the Secretary of the State forces me to surrender the passport before its time is up and to apply for another one—hey, presto—in the Government's initial period of so-called voluntary operation I will find myself forced to go on the register and to have an ID card whether I want one or not. That is the power given to the Secretary of State in what was the Government's unamended version of Clause 5.
	Of course, if the Government at a later stage were to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, my amendment would not be so important. The problem would not subsist, but as I mentioned earlier with my own amendment to remove Clause 6, I rather suspect that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may come winging back to us. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has more confidence in the foresight of the Government and feels that they will accept his amendment as they should—quite right too.
	My amendment does only what the Minister assured me that the Government intended; I therefore think it is hardly controversial. As the Minister said on 12 December:
	"The Government do not intend to make an individual surrender a lawfully held document to obtain a replacement document that has been designated".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; cols. 1011-12.]
	If that is the case, why not make it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State will abide by that assurance? That would bind not only the current Government, but any future one as well. As I said, we know that in the Road Safety Bill the Government tried to give themselves just such a power of requiring surrender of driving licences. The House voted on 29 November to remove that power by taking out Clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill.
	I move this amendment because I read carefully over the weekend the response that was given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield on these very matters. The Minister failed to give an assurance that the power in the Road Safety Bill would not be used to recall driving licences so that they could be reissued as designated documents requiring a person to register on the national identity register and have an ID card. He went about his answer in a different way and did not therefore give the assurances that we required to allay our suspicions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, merely repeated earlier assurances that the Government had no plans at the moment to designate driving licences and, if they were to do so, it would be prescribed by order under the affirmative procedure as in Clause 4 of the Bill. We know that, we can see that in the Bill. We sought a different kind of assurance. He simply did not address that. Has the Minister had any assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about the recall of driving licences? Will the Government accept the view of the House that Clauses 29 and 30 of the Road Safety Bill should not form part of this Bill?
	Overall, my concern remains that the Government should not be able to recall documents in order to force an early take-up of ID cards. I appreciate that the Minister may not have had a communication from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. That is why this is a probing amendment at this stage. It may well be that she can give an assurance tonight and surprise me, or she may wish to give that assurance at Third Reading. But assurance there has to be, preferably a belt and braces provision in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know whether I will be able to give all the assurances that the noble Baroness wishes, but I shall give her, I hope, a satisfactory explanation with which she will be content. I understand the reasons behind the amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that there really is no concern and that therefore there is no need for the amendment.
	Registering individuals as they replace a designated document will provide a predictable roll-out, which means that there will be a steady volume of applications for the issue of identity cards. That in turn will make planning easier. It will reduce the risk of problems caused by fluctuating or unpredictable volumes and reduce costs because the capacity that the identity card-issuing system will need at varying stages and the roll-out can be more carefully managed and will be much more even.
	The noble Baroness will know of the volume of passports that are issued every year and that we will therefore be able to predict more precisely when the likely turnover will be. We do not know the scope of the power to recall driving licences precisely, and we will have to come back to the noble Baroness on that. I shall be happy to talk to my noble friend about the matters that she raised with her usual eloquence.
	The recall of all existing documents would be a risky enterprise. Although volumes will be known, it will take place over a much shorter period, and volumes would be very much higher. That would increase the project risks and, indeed, the costs. It would be much harder to predict how much capacity would be needed at various stages. It would not be wise to build a system designed to issue a very large number of identity cards in a very short time, followed by a long period in which application numbers were small, and ending up 10 years later with another vast influx of applications as all the initial identity cardholders renewed their documents. It would be building into the system capacity issues that would be unhelpful.
	I can therefore give the noble Baroness an assurance that the Government do not intend to require the recall of any category of document, be it passports or other documents, simply in order to introduce identity cards. When the Government consider that the time is right to proceed to compulsion, so that every United Kingdom resident has an ID card, then, as we have always made clear, we would proceed by way of a compulsion order under Clause 6, if that clause is in due course restored to the Bill, rather than by attempting to recall all remaining passports or other designated documents.
	The noble Baroness was right to anticipate what might happen in due course. As we have discussed, we will roll out the issue of identity cards incrementally as people naturally apply for or renew the documents that it is intended to designate, such as the passport for British citizens and residence permits for foreign nationals.
	Paragraph (b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 58A would also have a negative impact on the scheme. It would prevent the encouragement of people to upgrade their existing document once it had been designated. Home Office research has shown that 26 per cent of people said that they would be prepared to renew their passport earlier in order to obtain a joint identity card and passport package. It would not make sense if a new agency established to issue identity cards could not encourage such people to take up that opportunity—for example, by offering a discount on the combined fee for a passport and identity card for existent passport holders who wished to renew early.
	As I have just made clear, we have no intention of recalling existing documents to introduce identity cards. However, we would not want in any way to delay the benefits of the scheme by preventing the new agency encouraging people to update their documents so as to obtain a card. It has always been made clear that there could be no "big bang" introduction of identity cards. So, rather than speeding up their introduction by recalling existing documents, it will be necessary to spread it over a number of years. It would be wrong to be constrained as the new clause provides.
	Amendments Nos. 62A and 62C to Clause 13, which covers invalidity and surrender of ID cards, would both affect the cancellation of a group of identity cards. Amendment No. 62A would prevent the Secretary of State cancelling a particular class of identity cards that he had decided should be re-issued and amended, while Amendment No. 62C would prevent the requiring of the surrender of an ID card in such a category. They could have a serious impact on the security of the identity card scheme.
	If it were not possible to recall a group of identity cards, it might be necessary to require a particular category of identity cards to be surrendered and re-issued, if their security had somehow been compromised. That might affect just one batch of identity cards, something that we touched on earlier this evening. However, in such a case it would be essential for all the cards in that batch to be cancelled, recalled and reissued as quickly as possible, which would be necessary as much for the interests of the identity card holders as the overall integrity of the identity card scheme.
	I hope that the noble Baroness understands why we think that the amendments are unnecessary and that the Bill is drawn appropriately. I therefore invite her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly as she says that she will speak with her noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham about the interaction with the Road Safety Bill. I anticipated that she might argue that the Government wanted to have a predictable roll-out, so that they could predict numbers year by year. I can well understand that wish, if one is managing a vast scheme of this nature. On the other hand, if you are an individual on the receiving end of that, it looks haphazard, as one of my noble friends said earlier today. It seems that because you happen to have got your passport at a certain time, you come into the system at the stage when it runs out. However, I understand the Minister's argument.
	I also found intriguing her answer that it could be helpful to offer a discount for early take-up. I will not mock that, for there the Minister is putting forward the idea of a real choice for individuals on whether they want to enter the scheme. In the Bill at present, that is the only time when they would have a real choice, while others would have been forced in the initial stage. So, I see a tiny gleam in the Government's dark suit of armour suggesting that the individual has some choice; it is just not far enough.
	I entirely accept and understand what the noble Baroness says about the potential need to recall a category of cards if their security has been compromised. Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Marlesford recalled the occasion when he arranged for us both to go to the Passport Agency and, as I have said previously, they were most accommodating. They really tried to give us as much information as possible and impressed me with the public service that they provided. However, as my noble friend said, they were forthcoming with information that we were perhaps not comfortable with about attempts at forgery in the current Passport Agency system. So, that created some concern about the lack of security already in the system and how that might become more serious when the roll-out of ID cards comes.
	However, I entirely accept the noble Baroness's argument on those points, and I shall return to the amendments only on the basis of an assurance via the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. Otherwise, they shall not see the light of day again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 [Power to require information for validating Register]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 9, line 40, leave out "for being" and insert "to be"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 59 and 72 are drafting amendments tabled to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. They do not change the meaning or effect of the clauses, but they clarify certain issues highlighted by the noble Lord, with which we agree. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 59A to 59C not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register]:
	[Amendments Nos. 59D and 59E not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 61:
	Page 11, line 15, after "at" insert "an agreed place and time or (in the absence of agreement) at"
	Page 11, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make by this section is exercisable, on the first occasion on which regulations are made under this section, only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
	Clause 13 [Invalidity and surrender of ID cards]:
	[Amendment No. 62A not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 62B:
	Page 12, line 1, leave out from "issued" to end of line 2.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, this gets a little confusing. It is all very well to assist the House by withdrawing amendments, but it then gets confusing as to which ones are to be moved.
	Clause 13 concerns the invalidity and surrender of ID cards. Subsection (3), which would be amended by the amendment, provides that if someone is in possession of an ID card that is not his own and for which he does not have the authority of either the individual who is the subject of the card or of the Secretary of State, he must surrender it to the Secretary of State. My amendment would remove the authority of the Secretary of State to give someone the right to have another person's ID card in his possession.
	I understand that the Secretary of State will want to give permission to those who are manufacturing cards to have them in their possession. Or, if this is such a secure matter that the Government do not want to trust to the post the delivery of the card to the person, so that the person must go to an enrolment centre to pick it up, the person who is staffing an enrolment centre may well need physically to have his mitts on the card. However, who else do the Government intend to have permission to have the ID card in their possession and in what circumstances? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so clearly. Essentially, she inquires why the Secretary of State might authorise someone to have another person's card without their agreement. It would certainly not be normal practice for the Secretary of State to authorise anyone to have another person's ID card without their agreement, but there may well be some circumstances—the noble Baroness has imagined some—in which an ID card is held without the specific authority of the holder and where it would be inappropriate to require its surrender as soon as practicable. For example—this is an example in which I have been interested for a while—the card may be held by the police or another enforcement agency as part of a continuing inquiry. A widely known need for that power would be the case of football banning orders.
	Clause 13 would allow the Secretary of State to order the surrender to him of an ID card. This could be held by the police or appropriate authorities with the permission of the Secretary of State but not necessarily with the permission of the individual concerned. Indeed, he may be very unhappy about it as it is likely to be withheld from him along with his passport where there is an obligation to surrender the passport. In those kinds of law enforcement cases we would expect someone to hold the document, not necessarily with the permission of the person to whom the card has been issued.
	The Secretary of State might also authorise that the ID card of a person who has died be retained by the next of kin. There may be circumstances like that where, for practical reason, the card would be held by someone to whom it had not been directly issued.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 62C and 62D not moved.]
	Clause 14 [Provision of information for verification or otherwise with consent]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 62E:
	Page 13, line 29, leave out "modify subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "amend subsections (2) and (3) by—
	(i) amending existing paragraphs; or
	(ii) adding new paragraphs relating to information on the Register which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual regularly needs to prove"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 72E and government amendments in this group.
	As I understand it—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—Amendment No. 63 will amend subsection (6)(c) to clarify the wording referring to persons in this case as will be specified or determined by the regulations in that subsection and then limits the powers via the conditions imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b).
	This change to Clause 14 is welcome in so far as it goes. However, realistically it does little. It means that there is a slight tightening up of the order-making powers in subsection (6) and the Secretary of State's ability to provide information to a person about an individual's recorded entry in subsection (1), but not much else.
	Amendment No. 64 appears to be a drafting amendment. It removes the phrase "modifying subsection (2) or (3)" and inserts,
	"that he is authorised to make by subsection (4)(a)".
	Subsection (4)(a) states that the Secretary of State may,
	"by order modify subsections (2) and (3)".
	The Government are changing the wording but not the meaning; namely, that an order to modify subsections (2) and (3) needs to go through the affirmative procedure.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has brought forward a number of amendments to meet the comments of the DPRR Committee on the Bill. However, they notably fail to address the concerns the DPRR Committee expressed about Clause 14 relating to this exact issue—something which my amendment seeks to address—namely, that the term "modify" in the Bill under the general interpretation in Clause 43 of the Bill, (page 37, line 23) includes the power to omit. The DPRR highlights that,
	"the power appears to extend to omitting subsections (2) and (3) altogether, so leaving no limit on what may be provided with the individual's consent".
	The report goes on to state:
	"This seems wider than is appropriate in light of the Government's stated intentions".
	Indeed, paragraphs 70 and 71 of the government memorandum to the committee state that,
	"Subsections (2) and (3) limit the information which can be lawfully provided under this power",
	and that,
	"this is limited to core identity information and excludes other administrative and historic data that may be held on the Register".
	If subsections (2) and (3) can be omitted and replaced with anything else, this is indeed a far-reaching power which will enable the subsections to be altered beyond the boundaries the Government have indicated. Like the DPRR Committee,
	"we are not persuaded that the case for so wide and significant a power has been made".
	Given that, I hope the Minister will be able to accept our amendment. It aims to limit modifications to these subsections by allowing the Secretary of State to amend only existing paragraphs or to add new paragraphs relating to information on the register which he is satisfied that the individuals regularly need to prove.
	Government Amendment No. 74 is linked to Clause 14 in that it adds a new subsection to Clause 23, which itself provides the,
	"rules for providing information without an individual's consent".
	As the Minister has explained, it prevents the Secretary of State providing information about an individual to another person under Clauses 19 to 22 unless it is,
	"subject to the satisfaction in relation to that other person of conditions imposed by subsection (4)(a)";
	namely, that,
	"the person to whom it is provided has registered prescribed particulars about himself with the Secretary of State".
	Again, I suggest that this is a welcome addition. However, I also take this opportunity to highlight the continued inclusion of Clause 22, which the DPRR Committee suggested should be removed; hence the inclusion of the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay in this group.
	The simplest explanation for an amendment to leave out Clause 22 comes from the committee's report, which states:
	"The power in Clause 22 is wider than that in Clause 19(5). It enables the Secretary of State, by order, subject to affirmative procedure, to prescribe any information in a register entry (apart from the audit trail information in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1), any public authority (as defined for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) and any purposes, thereby making lawful the provision of information to that authority for those purposes without the individual's consent. This enables the Secretary of State to make information very freely available, including to non-government bodies that perform some public functions.
	"In the light of public concerns about the wide dissemination of information to different state organisations, the power in clause 22 requires the fullest justification, and we consider it to be inappropriate unless it can be shown to be fully justified. Paragraph 104 of the memorandum states that, 'it is regarded as essential to have a reserve power to use in the public interest if it should be necessary'. This is an insufficient justification and we draw this issue to the attention of the House".
	I hope that the noble Baroness, having had time to look at the report and come forward on some of the other points, can clarify beyond the arguments already given to the DPRR Committee, why the Government have not taken up the two recommendations addressed in our amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness satisfaction on these points. On the narrowing of the clause to which she refers, it may be that something can be done. However, I am not able to accept her amendments for the reasons I shall set out.
	It is important to remember that Clause 14 addresses information from the register being provided with the consent of the individual concerned. It is right that I should begin by clearing up a little confusion which arose towards the end of our last sitting in Committee. The technical government amendment I mentioned as part of a large group should indeed have been Amendment No. 64, not Amendment No. 66. The error was made in the groupings list rather than in my notes. I see that it has now been corrected. So it is government Amendment No. 66 that we are discussing here. I apologise to noble Lords for any confusion that may have been caused. Perhaps I should have been more confident that I was right and the list was wrong, but as noble Lords know I am quick to accept my own fallibility.
	Amendment No. 62E seeks to provide that the Secretary of State could not add to the information provided by Schedule 1 unless he was satisfied that the additional information was information the individual would regularly need to prove. I recognise, as I think the noble Baroness has mentioned, that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform was critical about the width of this power. Clearly it is both necessary and desirable to allow the scheme to adapt to different user requirements in the future, but we would not seek to expand the list of information that may be provided under Clause 14 unless there was a clear user need. In that sense, our policy is not at odds in any way with the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment. Also, we would not use the power to remove subsections (2) and (3) altogether, a possibility that caused concern in the committee, and indeed was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, this evening.
	For various reasons, I cannot accept Amendment No. 62E, but I will undertake to return at Third Reading with an amendment that narrows the scope of the power in Clause 14(4)(a). I do not think the noble Baroness was suggesting that her amendment was the perfect construct; it simply gives us an opportunity to look at how we should do this. I agree with her that there is perhaps something we can do there.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 63, 66 and 74 is, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that the Secretary of State will in practice be obliged to set up a system of accreditation in relation to persons to whom information may be provided from the register. We have always intended that there should be an accreditation system and that regulations should be made, but as the committee pointed out in paragraph 46 of its report, Clauses 14, 17 and 23 do not by themselves secure that there must be such a system. These amendments remedy that.
	Amendment No. 63 has the effect of obliging the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 14(6)(a) and (b) that make the provision of information with consent conditional on the recipient of that information being accredited. Amendment No. 66 has the effect of obliging the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 17(3)(a) and (b) that make the provision of information to public service providers conditional on those providers being accredited. Amendment No. 74 has the effect of obliging the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 23(4)(a) that make the provision of information without consent conditional upon the recipients of that information being accredited. The only recipients of information who will not have to be accredited are those specified on the face of the Bill in Clauses 19 to 22. The DPC did not require the removal of Clause 22; rather, it considered that insufficient justification had been put forward for this clause. We intend to come back to this at Third Reading with further justification.
	Amendment No. 72A would remove Clause 22 from the Bill. This clause contains a power under which an order may be made specifying persons to whom information may be provided from the register in situations not covered by Clauses 19 to 21. The power only applies to information not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1; the audit trail information is not covered. The power applies only in relation to public authorities as defined by the Human Rights Act, and only with regard to the provision of information that is necessary in the public interest as defined in Clause 1 of the Bill, which sets out the statutory purposes. Again, the power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Examples of how this clause might be used include authorising information to be provided without consent for use by registrars-general of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; to receive information to be used for statistical purposes; or to local authorities for council tax or housing benefit administration. Neither would be covered by the definition of "government department" in Clause 19(5).
	In addition, Clause 22 would permit the Secretary of State to provide information to bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the future it may be necessary to provide this organisation with information about someone's identity to assist it in an investigation that it is conducting. Without Clause 22 we would have no power to provide it with information from the register as it would not fall under the definition of a "government department". We believe it is right therefore that we ensure Parliament has the opportunity to consider further uses when there are convincing reasons for doing so, and that we do not limit the effectiveness of the scheme by requiring any public authority which has a convincing reason for requesting information from the database to wait until there is appropriate primary legislation. We are confident that we have provided adequate safeguards by restricting the circumstances in which information can be provided to those where provision is to a public authority and is in the public interest.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Have the Government any present plans for sharing information with public authorities and, if so, which?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not believe that we have any such plans over and above those we have already discussed. The noble Lord will remember that we discussed the public authorities and the way in which the measure will work both in Committee and earlier. But over and above that we do not have any new plans. However, if there are further and other instances, I will write to noble Lords about them. As I say, there is nothing new over and above that which we have already discussed. I believe that we discussed it fairly extensively in Committee. I cannot think of anything new; that is what I am saying in essence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given the importance of the matter it would be helpful if a list of those who are currently contemplated could be given to us.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am certainly very happy to write to the noble Lord setting out what we think would be encompassed in the measure and to indicate whether there are any further or other instances when we think that it might be appropriate. I cannot think of any at the moment but I am very happy to do that.
	As I say, any orders laid under Clause 22 will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I remind noble Lords that we would therefore be able to have a debate on whether things had or had not been appropriately included at that stage. That is the assurance that proper discussion could still be undertaken in that regard. We therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, to withdraw Amendments Nos. 62E and 72A, to which she has spoken. We hope that noble Lords will accept government Amendments Nos. 63, 66 and 74. As I indicated, I shall return to the other matter at Third Reading.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness as I feel an attack of optimism coming on. I am grateful to her for agreeing to come back at Third Reading. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
	Page 13, line 47, leave out "by the prescribed person in the prescribed manner." and insert "in the prescribed manner by the person specified in or determined under the regulations.
	( ) The power of the Secretary of State under this section to provide information about an individual to another person is exercisable only where the provision of the information is subject to the satisfaction in relation to that other person of conditions imposed under subsection (6)(a) and (b)."
	Page 14, line 2, leave out "modifying subsection (2) or (3)" and insert "that he is authorised to make by subsection (4)(a)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Power to make public services conditional on identity checks]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 64A:
	Page 14, line 14, leave out from beginning to "evidence" in line 15.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 64A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64B. This returns to an issue that I raised briefly in Committee—that of access to health services and whether one has to use an ID card to obtain such access.
	Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations which may allow or require a public service to force us to use our ID cards or other evidence of identity. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that public services can indeed ask for proof of identity; what they cannot do is ask a person to use only their ID card as that proof of identity. This would ensure that a person could retain their privacy in seeking medical help since they would not have to allow their visit to be recorded on the audit trail of a national identity register.
	In Committee I raised the issue of access to health services where fees may be required. My question is: in advance of compulsion why should the Bill allow for the possibility of regulations requiring the production of an ID card for access to health services where there is a fee? Two-thirds of people pay for their prescriptions. Why should there be the power to require them to produce an ID card in that so-called voluntary period? I am trying to ensure that the person has the option of providing other forms of identity. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so clearly. As the Bill stands, public service providers could require an individual who requested a service to produce an ID card, evidence of registrable facts, or both. If these amendments are accepted, public service providers could request only evidence of registrable facts. An ID card is, of course, evidence of registrable facts, but the amendment would arguably remove the power for an ID card to be specified as the form of identification to be used. Rather, people would be able to produce any form of identification, however insecure, which contained evidence of registrable facts.
	I would like to outline the importance of making public services conditional upon secure identity checks. The identity cards scheme will immediately provide a more convenient way for people to show their identity when accessing public or private sector services. However, until it becomes compulsory for the individual concerned to register, the ID card could not be the only way of proving identity for the purposes of receiving private services, benefits or free public services. Clause 18 sets out this prohibition on mandating use of the card before any move to compulsion. Nevertheless, the identity card will offer the individual a more secure proof of identity than what is on offer today.
	Amendments Nos. 64A and 64B seek to ensure that public service providers can only require an individual to provide evidence of registrable facts rather than specifying an ID card as a means of identification. In practice, the ID card makes the process of verification against the national identity register much easier and much quicker for the individual. Without it, while a biometric verification could take place against a register it may potentially require a more complex, "one to many" record check, rather than a more efficient "one to one" check, against the individual's specific record. The alternative would be to rely on other, less secure, and often less convenient, documentation, such as utility bills, which were never really intended to provide proof of anything, other than how much gas or electricity has been used.
	I do not think it appropriate for the Bill to specify in which way public service providers must verify their customers. Subject to initial accreditation procedures, such decisions should be suited to the particular nature of the service provided and the existing relationship between the individual and the service provider. For some low-value transactions, or for individuals who have regular interaction with the service provider, a check on validity of the card—that is to say, it has not been reported lost or stolen—may simply be acceptable. Additionally, some organisations may decide to verify the individual by asking them to use the PIN. The choice should be one that is suited to the particular situation, not restricted in the manner in which these amendments would seek to do.
	Additionally, in the future, some methods of remote authentication, such as to request a service over the Internet, may require the individual requesting the service to physically have their ID card in their possession. These amendments would remove the ability of the service provider to insist that an ID card was present during such a transaction. Such a situation may mean that new secure technologies for remote authentication could not be used.
	Any regulations made under Clause 15 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would have to be individually approved for each public service that wished to rely on identity checks. Parliament will, therefore, have the opportunity to debate and vote on the regulations tabled for each public service. I hope that provides the noble Baroness with sufficient reassurance and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his courteous response. He has not actually given me reassurance overall, but he has given me enough reassurance to withdraw the amendment. I think it has proved to me two things. The first is the importance of tackling this issue from another angle—that is, looking at the audit trail. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, tabled an amendment on our first day in Committee with regard to the paragraph 9 of the schedule. I want to look at that again as an important way of tackling this. Secondly, the Minister was far too courteous to point out that my amendment did not achieve what I was trying to achieve anyway. He gave me the answer that I needed, even if I did not like it and even though I had tabled the wrong amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 64B to 64D not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Procedure for regulations under s. 15]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 64E:
	Page 15, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) Any consultation required under this section must include consultation with—
	(a) representatives of ethnic minorities;
	(b) representatives of disabled people;
	(c) representatives of pensioners;
	(d) representatives of students and young people; and
	(e) users of the service concerned."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the end is in sight, at least today. Clause 16 sets out the procedure for making regulations under the gate-keeping system in Clause 15. The Explanatory Notes tell us that:
	"Subsection (6) requires there to be consultation with interested parties, for example the providers of a public service, before any regulations are made . . . if there is an equivalent requirement in other legislation governing that service to consult these interested parties".
	It therefore seems that the Government are in practice considering only a need to consult the service providers. My question is really about the users of the service and others who have an interest in its provision. Should they not also be consulted?
	My amendment therefore adds a requirement that consultation should encompass representatives for disabled people, ethnic minorities, pensioners and young persons. As ever, it is not meant to be an either inclusive or exclusive list that I want to see in the Bill; it is simply a stab at defining some of those who might be consulted. As soon as I read it again this evening, I realised that I had made the same mistake as on a previous Bill and had left out the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender group, for which I apologise. I am sure that it would have reminded me after this had appeared in Hansard even if I had not noticed tonight. The amendment simply asks the Government to explain what consultation there will be, how it will happen, and why it should not be extended to the users—the people whom the Government say will benefit from the service. What benefit? My goodness me. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the breadth and depth of consultation and the need to be inclusive. I am sure that no one who knows her assiduousness would possibly think that she had forgotten the gay, lesbian or transgender group for very long.
	The provision is expressed as it is in Clause 16(6) for a straightforward reason—that there is no need to specify in the Bill the different groups of people that will need to be consulted. There is no doubt that we would wish to include representatives from all these groups, as well as others not mentioned, if the regulations tabled under Clause 15 would affect them. There is an obligation in Clause 16(4) to consult members of the public likely to be affected.
	We have put Clause 16(6) in this way because there may be occasions when regulations relate to a specified group. For example, if we were to say that special provisions were to apply to people aged 25 and under, we would not need to consult those of 65. If we were to say that other provisions related to people over 75 or 95, one could see that we would need to consult that specific group but might be able to exclude others. That is the only reason why the provision is there. We want proper consultation with the members of the public likely to be affected, pursuant to Clause 16(4). I know that the noble Baroness is anxious for us never to waste time and to be absolutely practical, so I am sure that the reasons why the amendment is not necessary will be only too plain to her.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful that the Government will carefully consider consultation. I appreciate that subsection (4) referred generally to members of the public, but it was important to look at the classes of the public. The noble Baroness is right; it is not a case of looking at a description of a class of persons with regard to their continuing condition—something to which they may always subscribe. They may become disabled during their life, or may be disabled from when they are born, but there are times when it would be right for the Government to consult specific groups defined in a transient way. I am grateful to her for her answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Merseyside Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [HL]

Presented and read a first time.
	House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.